On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the approximate amount saved to the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland by the substitution of imported produce of forage and meat?

The amount saved is, at least, a quarter of a million.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the lord of the manor of Ryton-on-Dunsmore, near Rugby, has recently leased the parish pound, although the parishioners have for upwards of 50 years possessed the right of using that pound without the payment of rent, and during that period the fences of the pound have been kept in order at the expense of the parish; whether, so long a period having elapsed during which the parishioners have enjoyed the use of the pound without payment of rent, it has now become the possession of the parish; and whether, in the event of this not being the case, the lord of the manor is acting within his rights in letting the pound?

I have received a communication, from which it appears that the lord of the manor claims the freehold of the sits in question, and the right to let it, engaging always to provide a proper place for strayed cattle, etc. I have no jurisdiction to determine the question as to the rights of the lord of the manor in the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an industrial school under the management of a voluntary and unpaid committee is subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897; if steam power is used to cut wood or do other things in connection with the work of the school; and, if so, whether the members of the committee are individually liable to be called upon to pay compensation to any one of their workmen should he receive any injury when employed in the home; and whether it is permissible for an industrial home, receiving Government money, to be carried on by a limited company? In putting the Question, I should like to point out that the limited company referred to in the second paragraph of the Question is a company formed under clause 23 of the Act of 1867 for philanthropic purposes, and not for profit-making.

The Act will apply, so far as workmen employed are concerned, if the premises come within the statutory definition of a factory; and I am not aware that there is anything to prevent individual members of the committee being liable. There is no legal objection, I believe, to a board of managers being incorporated as a limited company, and there are one or two cases in which this has been done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by Mr. E. T. Hooley with regard to alleged cases of blackmailing by financial newspapers; and, if so, whether he will cause some inquiries to be made into them, and especially instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to follow the proceedings pending in the bankruptcy court, with a view to taking action in the matter in the public interest if any evidence is forthcoming to support such a course?

I have referred this Question to my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the light duties attached to the office of Deputy Judge Advocate General, the Treasury will consider the desirability of taking advantage of the approaching vacancy in that office to effect its abolition, by uniting its duties with those of the Deputy Judge Advocate, thus effecting a saving to the country of about £1,000 per annum?

As stated by my right honourable Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury a few days ago, a successor to the present Deputy Judge Advocate General has already been selected. A large reduction has already been effected by the transfer to one of Her Majesty's judges, without addition to his judicial Salary, of the office of Judge Advocate General, to which a salary of £2,000 a year was formerly attached. By the retirement of Mr. O'Dowd we save the £200 a year which he has received as Army Purchase Commissioner, since he has agreed to continue his services in that capacity without remuneration. It is not practicable to take this opportunity to combine the office of Deputy Judge Advocate General with that of Deputy Judge Advocate, as the one requires legal and the other military experience.

beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the per capita cost of each sick soldier in hospital?

There is no general statement of cost made for all hospitals, but a short time back the cost was worked out at a typical hospital, and it was found that the cost per patient, over and above his cost when on duty, was about 1s. 8d. a day for items concerning the man himself, or 2s. 6d. a day if the cost of the medical officers be added.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce early next Session a Bill to ensure the supply by water com- panies of pure and wholesome water, and otherwise safeguard the interests of water consumers; and, if so, whether the Bill will apply to all existing companies?

I am not in a position to make any statement as to the legislation which the Government will propose next Session, or as to the scope and extent of any of the Bills they may introduce.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what amount of grant the War Office is prepared to make to the Gloucestershire Volunteer companies towards purchasing or otherwise providing a suitable rifle range for the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers in the immediate vicinity of Gloucester out of the funds provided by the Military Works Act, 1897?

I regret to say that, so far as we can see, the money available under the Military Works Act is fully appropriated to the construction of large rifle ranges at different centres.

Can the right honourable Gentleman offer no hope that the War Office will be able to make a grant in this case?

I am afraid there would be great difficulty in that matter. All the sums we have for ranges have already been allotted to large centres, and I fear it would open too wide a door if we were to make an exception in this case.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the new warrant for the Army Medical Department will be issued?

The warrant constituting the Royal Army Medical Corps has been approved by Her Majesty, and will be published in the Army Orders for July.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Belfast is the only part in Ireland in which civilians or policemen personally injured by riotous mobs are unable to obtain compensation; and whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission which inquired into the Belfast riots of 1886 strongly recommended that some means should be found of awarding compensation in such cases, and that the Local Government Bill now before the House proposes to remedy the grievance, he will see that those injured during the recent riots are compensated either by making the clause in the Local Government Bill retrospective, or by some other means?

I beg also to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is it the intention of the Government to make retrospective the clause of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill dealing with compensation for personal injuries, to cover the case of those police constables who were so seriously assaulted in the late Belfast riots?

On the Report stage of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill the Government will move Amendments applying the provisions of the Grand Jury Acts on this point to all parts of Ireland, but it is not intended to make the Amendments retrospective in their operation. This answer will cover my reply to the Question standing in the name of the honourable Member for North Monaghan.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say by whose directions a road adjoining the Wellington Monument has been made in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, which greatly disfigures the recreation ground of the citizens of Dublin?

It is not the fact that a road has been made adjoining the Wellington Monument in the Phœnix Park. The circumstances which have given rise to the honourable Member's Question are, I understand, as follows: Owing to the exhaustion of the limestone quarries in the Park, it has recently become necessary to obtain from a distance the supplies of stone required for repairing the roads in the Park, and a spot had to be selected on which the rough stone might be stored in readiness for use. The Board of Works have chosen for this purpose a hollow in the ground on the extreme edge of the Park which is screened from the outside road by a high wall, and from the interior of the Park by rising ground and by a belt of trees.

Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that some very pretty trees have been cut down for this purpose?

I understand they were very small trees.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to inform the House if the difficulty connected with the acquisition of land for the Clyde defence works, a scheme for which has been considered and approved of for over 10 years, is any nearer solution; what is the precise nature of the difficulties in securing a suitable position, and who is responsible for these difficulties?

In view of the statements made by the deputation who recently waited on the Secretary of State, it has been decided to send experts to further examine and report on the steps necessary for the defence of the estuary of the Clyde—it being understood that the deputation will do all in their power to facilitate the acquisition of sites on reasonable terms.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that some of the officers of his Department supply information obtained by them in the discharge of their official duties to certain newspapers by arrangement with the conductors of such papers; whether the Board stated in a letter to a correspondent on the 10th. instant, that they had not thought it necessary to interfere with the arrangement; whether payment is made to such officers for supplying the information; and whether, considering the provisions of 52 and 53 Vic, c. 52, the disclosure of official documents or information can be sanctioned?

I am aware that officers of the Department furnish certain publications with lists of the appointments and resignations of poor law officers and sanitary officers, the particulars being obtained from communications addressed to the Board. These lists are not prepared in official hours, and payment is made for them. The arrangement in no way contravenes the provisions of the Act referred to.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a representation from the Abbotshall Parish Council urging that any action in regard to the prosecution of parents who have declined to have their children vaccinated should be delayed until after the election of a new council, which will shortly take place; whether the Local Government Board have intimated that, unless the council prosecute within 10 days, the members of the council will be summoned before the Court of Session; and whether he can secede to the request of the parish council?

In reply to the first portion of the honourable Member's Question, the Secretary for Scotland in- forms me that he received a letter from the Chairman of the Abbotshall Parish Council a day or two ago, but the letter does not state that it is written by desire of the council. In reply to the second portion, the Local Government Board did make the intimation referred to, in strict conformity with the terms of the Statute which regulates their procedure in such cases. The Secretary for Scotland cannot, as at present advised, undertake to interfere with the ordinary course of the law in cases of a first prosecution, though he does not propose to make any change in the existing practice, nor to insist for cumulative prosecutions for the same offence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any steps have been as yet taken by the Board of Works to re-advertise for tenders for the construction of Buncrana and Carndonagh Railway, or if any negotiations have been or are at present pending between the Board of Works and any firm of contractors for the construction of said line?

The present intention is to advertise the Carndonagh and the Burton Port lines together. The Board of Works are not negotiating with any particular firm of contractors.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that an Army nursing sister can retire at the age of 60, after from 30 to 35 years' service, with a pension of £38 10s. a year, whereas an Army schoolmistress can retire at the age of 50, after 21 years' service, with a pension of £45 10s. a year, will he state why there should be such difference between the treatment of these two classes; and whether he will consider the advisability of improving the conditions of retirement of Army nursing sisters?

The facts are not as stated in the question. An Army nursing sister would receive after thirty years' service £35 a year, and if reported as having given special devotion to her duties may receive a higher pension up to a maximum of £50. An Army schoolmistress would receive after 21 years' service £31 19s. 2d., and after 30 years' service £45 13s. a year. The Secretary of State sees no reason to make any change in these conditions.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland can he state what steps, if any, have been taken by the management of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) to bring to justice the man Wheatfield, whose prosecution was recently recommended by the Monaghan bench of magistrates; and, is he aware that this man Wheatfield has been seen at fairs in the district since the prosecution was ordered; and, if so, what explanation have the railway officials to offer for their remissness in not having him brought to justice?

I have already stated that a summons at the suit of the Great Northern Railway Company has been issued against Wheatfield, upon whom, however, it has not been found possible to effect service, inasmuch as his whereabouts is unknown. As to the second paragraph, I understand that Wheatfield has not been seen in the neighbourhood of Monaghan since the occurrence, either by the police, or, so far as they can ascertain, by anyone else. Every effort will be made by the railway company to bring the man to justice, and if the honourable Member can throw any light upon his movements I would suggest that he should communicate with the police at Monaghan, who, as previously stated by me, will afford the railway company every assistance in their power.

I am glad to say I know nothing about the blackguard.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the outbreak of typhoid fever at Maidstone may be expected?

I am in hopes that the Report in question will be issued very shortly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into certain grievances from which the lighthouse keepers of Great Britain and Ireland alleged in a recent petition to this House that they are suffering?

The three lighthouse authorities submitted in 1897, after consultation with each other, proposals for the improvement of the position of lighthouse keepers of Great Britain and Ireland. Those proposals the Board of Trade sanctioned. Since then they have not been made aware of any complaints from the lighthouse keepers, showing dissatisfaction with the arrangements until the recent petition was presented. If the lighthouse keepers will forward their complaints, through the lighthouse authorities in whose employment they are, I will see that they receive careful consideration, but I do not think that the case is one for the appointment of a Committee of this House.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the fact that the forms to be filled in for the quinquennial valuation for income tax have been issued before the passing of the Finance Bill, and in consequence contain no reference to the new exemptions proposed in that Bill, will be allowed to prejudice the taxpayers in their assessments, or whether provision will be made to enable them to claim the new exemptions and reductions?

No taxpayer will be prejudiced in any claim which he may have to any of the abatements of income tax proposed in the Finance Bill of the year fey the fact that he may have filled up a form of return issued before the passing of the Bill. The form contains a note calling attention to the new abatements proposed in the Bill and stating that if the proposals become law claims for relief will be dealt with accordingly.

Then it will be necessary for the taxpayer to make a claim?

Certainly; if he wants the relief he must make the claim.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is the case that permission has been refused the Independent Order of Rechabites to take a band to play sacred music into Holyrood Park on the 17th proximo; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for such refusal?

The answer to the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. It has never been the practice to give leave to bands to play in any of the public parks, except under special circumstances or special conditions, which do not exist in the present case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, for the convenience of people attending Committees, he could arrange to have a telegraph messenger in attendance in the corridor upstairs, to take telegrams to the office, Central Hall, and to provide forms?

The Postmaster General does not think the arrangement suggested by the honourable Member would be quite satisfactory. He proposes, therefore, with the consent of the authorities of the House, to station a suitable officer in a convenient position in the corridor, whilst Committees are sitting, to receive telegrams and supply forms; and any telegrams deposited with this officer will be conveyed by messenger to the telegraph office in the Central Hall.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any contract at present between the Post Office and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland for the carriage of American and other mails to Queenstown and other places; if not, when did the last contract expire; and why has no new contract been made by the Post Office?

There is a mail contract existing between the Postmaster General and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, which applies to the conveyance of American, as well as other mails between Dublin and Queenstown and other places.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the growing dissatisfaction of the large towns of this country at the inadequate number of their representatives in the House of Commons; and whether it is the intention of the Government next Session to bring in a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats, so as to secure that, on the basis of population, the large towns shall have the number of representatives in the House of Commons to which they are fairly entitled?

The Question of my honourable Friend is substantially the same as one of which an honourable Friend of mine has given me private notice. I have only to say that I have already admitted, on behalf of the Government, the anomalies to which my honourable Friends have drawn attention, and that they are real, that they are increasing, and deserve the serious attention of the House. I cannot give my honourable Friends any pledge as to the Parliamentary course to be pursued on this subject, only reminding them, however, that by constitutional usage a reform of this kind is an immediate prelude to a Dissolution. But, as I have already stated, this matter is engaging, and will engage, the earnest attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is under orders from the Admiralty that Commander Lyon, of H.M.S. Pelican, issued at Bay St. George, in Newfoundland, on. the 16th May, a notice informing the inhabitants of Bay St. George that they are forbidden to fish for herrings between the hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., of which the Fifth Article declares that no bait is to be sold to vessels other than French for less than one dollar per barrel; and the Sixth Article, that no bait is to be sold outside the limit of the harbour, taking a line from the lighthouse?

My right honourable Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The naval officers on the coast of Newfoundland act under orders from Her Majesty in Council issued under the Newfoundland French Treaties Act. Her Majesty's Government have not received any information of such a notice having been issued, but if it is in practice observed it is because the alternative under the Treaty would be to allow the French an unrestricted right of fishing for bait, which would be worse for the Newfoundland fishermen than such an arrangement as is implied in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether there is any legal authority for forcing the Newfoundland Colonial fishermen of St. George's Bay to sell bait to the French at 60 cents per barrel, and not sell to vessels other than French for less than one dollar per barrel; (2) whether the erection by the French upon the shore of the Colony of houses and stores is now held to come within the Treaty right to erect stages for the drying of fish; and (3) whether there has been a recent erection of such houses and stores by the French at Flat Bay and other places on the coast?

(1) As to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer returned to a similar Question by the right honourable Baronet on the 5th of April last. The practice does not rest on law, but is a matter of mutual arrangement and convenience. (2) Her Majesty's Government do not admit that the French have a right to erect any buildings on the Treaty shore except those specified in the Thirteenth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht. (3) The commodore has reported that, some small wooden huts have been erected by the French at Flat Bay; he has protested against their erection as contrary to the Treaties, and requested the French commodore to have them removed, but has not received a final answer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to grant to sailors if in destitute circumstances and unable to work, and who may have been awarded the Victoria Cross, the same consideration of their cases as has recently been acceded to soldiers; and, if so, whether the pension of £50 a year, though not retrospective, will be awarded irrespective of the date on which the V.C. was given?

The case of seamen of the Navy who have been awarded the Victoria Cross will be dealt with in the same spirit as in the recent announcement with regard to the Army, though the conditions are naturally different.

who was introduced by Mr. HALSEY (Herts, Watford) and Sir W. WALROND (Devon, Tiverton), took the oath and his seat for East Hertfordshire, in the room of the late Mr. ABEL SMITH, amid cheers.

When, nearly a year and a half ago, it was my duty to call the attention of the House to the position of affairs in the Soudan, the province of Dongola had been recovered from barbarism, and restored to peace and security under a civilised Government. At that time I referred not only to what was the present and what had been the past policy in the Soudan, but I also sketched the policy for the future; and if I venture to remind the House of what I then said, it is not because I attach any undue importance to my own words—I am very reluctant to do that—but because the sketch I then gave has been absolutely fulfilled both in spirit and letter. Sir, on that occasion I said that Her Majesty's Government had never concealed their view that there must be a further advance, after the successful result of the expedition to Dongola, and that Egypt could not be held to be permanently secured so long as a hostile Power was in occupation of the Nile Galley up to Khartoum. I stated our intention to pursue this policy prudently and gradually, for it would certainly not be either to the political or financial advantage of Egypt that more territory should be restored to her than she can properly administer or properly defend I said, further, that we proposed that in 1897 there should be a further advance to an important point on the Nile called Abu Hamed, and possibly beyond, and that, in our opinion, the main work to be done in the season before us would be the consolidation and connection of the district already under civilised government, and the acquisition of important strategical positions which might be of the utmost value in the future. I did not contemplate asking Parliament in 1897 for any further expenditure than that then proposed. Well, Sir, that statement was met, as everything we have said or done in regard to the Soudan has been met, by prophecies of evil and solemn warnings of future dangers, but it must be admitted that every word I said of our intentions has been completely fulfilled. The policy then laid down has been carried out by those who represent Her Majesty's Government in Egypt—by Lord Cromer, Sir Herbert Kitchener, General Sir F. Grenfell, aided by the Egyptian authorities in the most loyal manner, and has been carried out with a success which, whatever honourable Members may think of the merits, of the policy itself, I think all must appreciate and admire. Valuable lives have been lost in the valley of the Nile, but they have not been wasted, and the great result is that peace now reigns from Dongola, on the south-west, to Berber, Kassala, and Suakin, on the north east, and throughout the valley of the Nile and the whole of the north-east Soudan trade and industry are reviving surely, though no doubt slowly, as must necessarily be the case after the ruinous tyranny to which the whole of that country has been subjected in recent years. No doubt the recovered provinces have not yet paid the costs of their administration, but it would be a very strange thing if provinces subjected to such a rule should be able to pay the costs of their administration within a period of a couple of years of their restoration to civilisation. If honourable Members would look at the Report of Lord Cromer for 1897, which was presented to the House a few weeks ago, they would find there a paragraph which says that the province of Dongola had almost been denuded of its male population, that a mere fraction of the cultivated land was actually under cultivation, and that the date-trees, a great source of wealth in those regions, had been almost ruined by neglect. Now, Lord Cromer shows how this has been set right, how immigrants are coming in, how industry is reviving and cultivation extending, how even this year a good crop is expected, and how trade routes long closed have been opened, and a beginning made for the complete restoration of the blessings of civilised rule; and the important strategical position of Kassala, the safety of which was an object of the original expedition to Dongola, is now occupied by an Egyptian garrison, making, as Lord Cromer points out, a very important position for checking the slave trade in future between the interior of Africa and Arabia. All these important results have been achieved at a total cost of only £E1,850,000, of which £E750,000 has been, expended in the most valuable assets—hundreds of miles of railways and telegraphs which have been laid down and which will open up for the future the great highway of the Nile, in a manner in which it has never been opened up before. Now we come to the next step—the advance on Khartoum itself. No one can foresee what the nature of the attack may be. It may be, no doubt, that the severe defeats which have been recently inflicted on the Dervish forces, especially in their complete rout at the battle of Atbara, may neutralise their power of defence. It may be, on the other hand, that the assault on Khartoum may be of a nature infinitely more serious than anything that has up to the present been attempted or carried out. But for ail these eventualities Sir Herbert Kitchener and the forces under him will be prepared. They will be strengthened by a larger accession of British troops than has ever been employed in that region before, and we entertain the hope that, so far as human foresight can foresee, they will be so provided as to ensure, as far as possible, success. I remember that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, in referring to the matter at the commencement of the Session, took great exception to what he described as a policy which was neither prudent nor safe—that of locking up a British army at the Equator. If, in our belief, our policy involved the locking up of a British army at the Equator, I should be very much disposed to agree with him. In our belief it involves nothing of the kind, for a great many changes have taken place since the right honourable Gentleman talked of smashing the Mahdi, and did not do it. The Egyptian Army has been enormously improved in discipline, in power, and in morale. The Dervish power, though still formidable, must have been discouraged and disheartened by defeats; but what is perhaps more important than all, if you contrast the condition of affairs in the Soudan now with what it was in 1885, is this fact—that throughout the advance, since the expedition to Dongola was first undertaken, Sir Herbert Kitchener and his forces have been received with every manifestation of joy and friendly welcome by all the subject tribes. Those subject tribes, no doubt, had reason enough to complain of the old system of government of the pashas of Egypt. But they have found during the years that have passed that the government first of the Mahdi and then of the Khalifa was infinitely worse, and they welcome with joy anything which will tend to the complete abolition of the power of the Khalifa and the restoration of peace, security and trade to the country which they inhabit. That is not only true of the tribes in the valley of the Nile, but it is true also, as we have seen, of the tribes near Kassala, in the desert, and in the north-eastern Soudan; and only recently we have received messages from tribes far south of Khartoum praying that the assault on Khartoum may not be long delayed, for the final destruction of the Mahdi's power. Therefore I do not at all anticipate that it will be necessary to detain the large British force which will be employed in the assault on Khartoum for any length of time, either at Khartoum or in the Soudan; and I think it probable—though, of course, no one can speak with certainty with regard to military contingencies— that only a small portion of that force will be retained there after the power of the Khalifa has been finally broken, and even the stay of that portion at Khartoum or in the Soudan may be purely temporary, because we must remember that the Egyptian Army at present is better than it was in the old days of Ismail Pasha. I remember when I was in Egypt myself, more than 35 years ago, the journey to Khartoum and the neighbourhood of Khartoum was as safe as England itself, when the country was controlled solely by Egyptian troops, far inferior to the Egyptian forces of the present day, in the pay, of course, of the Egyptian Government. I ought to add, because the Committee will desire to have some information as to our policy in the future, that we do not contemplate the undertaking of any further military operations on a large scale, or involving any considerable expense, for the recovery of the provinces to the south of Khartoum. What we do anticipate is that expeditions may be made by the gunboat flotilla, which will be at the disposal of the Administration, to free the waterway of the Nile from any interference with perfect freedom of commerce with the interior, so far as it can be carried on by that waterway. We hope that in that way and by the establishment of friendly relations between the tribes to the south and the administration at Khartoum itself, it will be possible to open up these regions in a manner which will confer the greatest possible benefit upon Egypt and also upon this country. Of course, we have been told that in all this policy we are imposing upon Egypt a burden greater than Egypt can bear. I hardly think that the policy for the future, which I have sketched out, could be described as onerous to Egypt or dangerous or adventurous in itself. But I know that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has a very strong opinion upon this matter; that he has stated to the House that in his opinion It is not to the interest of Egypt, and that, in consequence of the Soudan policy, public works in Egypt have been suspended, and the development of the fellaheen and the commercial and agricultural interests have suffered. I should like to appeal from the right honourable Gentleman to a far greater and more impartial authority on Egyptian affairs, and that is Lord Cromer's Report. Honourable Members will find in the eighth page of Lord Cromer's Report this statement of his views, which I shall venture to read to the Committee. He says, referring to the reconquest of the Soudan—

"There can scarcely be two opinions on the point that it will be an unmixed blessing to the Egyptians when the matter is finally disposed of and when Egypt has acquired a settled frontier, free from fear of Dervish invasion or incursion. For many years past the obvious necessity of dealing sooner or later with the Soudan question has hung like a dead weight round the necks of all who had been responsible for the government of Egypt. It is, from the Egyptian point of view, well worth making some sacrifice in the direction of postponing reforms, which are avowedly desirable, in order to enable this weight to be removed. I hope and believe that the sacrifice will not be heavy, nor the postponement of much longer duration than it would have been had the Egyptian frontier remained at Wady Halfa."

Lord Cromer then goes on to say that—

"In spite of the difficulties arising from recent events in the Soudan the steady progress which has been characteristic of the last 15 years has as yet received no sensible check."

Lord Cromer's Report teems with evidence of the truth of the last passage which I have read. If honourable Members consider that insufficient expenditure is included in the Egyptian Budget for the present year, for necessary reforms and improvements in Egypt itself, I would refer them to what Lord Cramer states as to the action of the Caisse in this matter. The Caisse has to deal, as the Committee know, with the general reserve fund, which it may devote to purposes which in its belief are useful for the government of the country and cannot otherwise be provided for. The fund is, of course, purely Egyptian money, and Lord Cromer states that at the date of his Report the Caisse has made special grants from this fund of £E530,000 for the construction of two great weirs in Lower Egypt, £E254,000 for drainage purposes, £E100,000 for new material for Egyptian railways, and £E70,000 for improving prisons, hospitals, and schools. I think all that shows that improvement in Egypt has by no means stopped in consequence of the Soudan expenditure. (But, further, has the debt of Egypt been increased in the last year? What does Lord Cromer say? He says that, in spite of the expenses of the Soudan expedition, the aggregate indebtedness of Egypt has been decreased by £E229,000 during the year 1897, exclusive of the reductions which were effected by sales of property. I think I have given the right honourable Gentleman a sufficient answer from Lord Cromer's Report to his allegations that the development of the interests of Egypt proper has suffered by the expedition into the Soudan. Now, Sir, I come to the present financial needs in this matter. The whole of the Soudan expenditure has been provided for, as the accounts in Lord Cromer's Report show, up to the end of the year 1897, and, further, ordinary military and civil expenditure in the Soudanese provinces, to the extent of a net sum of £E213,000, including the occupation of Kassala, has been provided for in the ordinary Budget of 1898. But no provision has been made in the accounts which have been published for the expenditure consequent upon the reinforcement of the Egyptian Army by British troops early in the present year—those troops who arrived just in time to take part in the battle of Atbara—or for the further reinforcement which will be sent to aid in the capture of Khartoum. We have gone carefully into the probable cost of these further operations, in consultation with Lord Cromer, Sir Herbert Kitchener, and the military authorities, and I have had the advantage of some communication with Sir Elwin Palmer, the financial adviser of the Egyptian Government, who happens now to be in England. Of course, it is impossible to lay down any very definite estimate with regard to military operations; no one can foresee the contingencies that may arise. But, assuming those operations to be conducted in the manner in which they have hitherto been conducted, and with the success that has hitherto attended them—and I think that is not an unreasonable assumption—the authorities whom I have named estimate that the additional cost required should not exceed some £750,000. The arrangement will be that the whole cost of the matter will be borne by the Egyptian Government, and it will be controlled by Sir Herbert Kitchener, the Sirdar. In the sum I have named is included the charge for sea transport and other transport of the British troops from Malta, or Gibraltar, as the case may be, to Assouan and the Soudan. Sir, as I have said, that is the Estimate that has been framed, and Lord Cromer and Sir Elwin Palmer agree with me in considering that if we remit the loan which was made to the Egyptian Government, of £798,000, in the early part of 1897, the Egyptian Government will be well able to provide all that is necessary for the purpose. I may explain, perhaps, that the fact of that loan deprived the Egyptian Government to that extent of their ordinary borrowing powers. The Committee are probably aware that the borrowing powers which the Egyptian Government, like any other Government, possesses for the ordinary provision of ways and means are, in their case, limited to a million, and if they wanted to provide ordinary ways and means by the issue of Treasury Bills they could not exceed a million. By the fact that they accepted the sum of £800,000 from us, as a loan, they were deprived to that extent of their borrowing powers, which were really reduced to £200,000. Therefore it has been, I believe, some slight inconvenience to them with regard to their ordinary expenditure, but further of course the effect of treating this advance of £798,000 as a loan has been, as Lord Cromer's Report shows, to cause a deficiency in the special reserve fund, which is at the disposal of the Egyptian Government, of £E571,000. That deficiency will be turned into a surplus, which will be added to in the course of the coming 12 months by the surplus or the year, which may be fairly anticipated from the ordinary revenue, and the Egyptian Government will also receive from other sources considerable amounts under arrangements which they have recently been able to make. The net result will be that if this is no longer treated as a loan, but as a free grant, the Egyptian Government will be perfectly well able to bear all the expenditure we have any reason to anticipate without any further aid. Sir, perhaps I should explain to the Committee how this advance was made. It was voted by Parliament as an ordinary grant in aid to the Egyptian Government; £798,000 was voted in all, of which £528,000 was in order to enable the Egyptian Government to repay the advance which had been made by the Caisse towards the expenses of the Dongola expedition, and £270,000 was for the purchase of material for the railway from Wady Haifa to Abu Hamed, which has since been completed. Well, the Egyptian Government accepted this as a loan on current account, bearing interest of 2¾ per cent., to be gradually reduced by the application of any surplus arising from Dongola or the Soudan after the expenses of administration had been defrayed, and so much of the free surplus of the revenues of Egypt as might be annually agreed upon. Nothing has since been repaid, as the Committee are aware. That was the action of the Egyptian Government in concert with Her Majesty's Government, but so far as Parliament is concerned it was voted in the ordinary way of a grant in aid, as a free grant, and there is nothing in the record of the Vote, or in the Appropriation Act which sanctioned that Vote, to show that it was a loan at all. Therefore it would be technically possible for Her Majesty's Government to remit this loan and to inform the Egyptian Government that it need not be repaid; but, as the Committee will remember, I stated to Parliament that it was a loan, and I read the terms on which that loan would be made. We have therefore thought it only right to bring the matter before the House and to propose a Resolution that it is not expedient that the grant should be repaid, which I shall presently move, in order that we may have the authority of the House for our action, although, technically, I believe no authority is required, and, further, that honourable Members may have an opportunity of expressing their views on the whole subject, and on the policy we have pursued. Sir, I do not think anyone will grudge this remission of the loan. I am not aware that anyone supported our policy in 1897 because they considered that it was a loan and not a free grant. On the con- trary, I remember perfectly well the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, when I spoke of our policy as a philanthropic policy, to be supported by this House, because of the enormous blessings it would confer upon a population which has been subjected to the most barbarous despotism—the answer of the right honourable Gentleman to me was this—

"Oh yes, your philanthropy is all very well; I admit that it is philanthropic, but you ought not to make other people pay for the philanthropy which you desire to practise."

If this is treated as a free grant, and if we also bear in mind the other expenditure which has been incurred, notably the expenses, which we paid, of garrisoning Suakim by Indian troops, what it will amount to will be this: that our contribution, so far as we can at present anticipate, to the capture of Khartoum and the final smashing of the Khalifa will be a little short of a million. Those of us who remember that in 1885 four millions and a half were wasted in the Soudan for nothing at all will not, I think, consider a million a large contribution towards such a result. But if any credit be attached to anyone for that result, I do not desire to claim it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; I do claim it for, and I think the country will give it to, those men who have represented us in Egypt, who have added a fresh garland of laurels to the garland already won there by many of our countrymen by the skill and vigour and foresight with which, from the very inception of this enterprise, they have prosecuted it to the success which it has achieved, and with which they will, I believe, prosecute it to the final conclusion. I beg to move—

"That it is expedient that the grant in aid of £798,802 to the Government of His Highness the Khedive should not be repaid."

I do not rise for the purpose of discussing over again the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government in these expeditions. The Motion to-day is a financial Motion, and I desire to call attention to the finance, which is always an important matter, which is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to say that gentlemen on this side of the House had changed their views upon this matter. I was not at all aware that we had changed our views.

I did not say that.

Well, at all events, the right honourable Gentleman said something about predictions. There there is an old proverb, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." I should have been very glad if in regard to these matters the predictions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the commencement of this business had been fulfilled. In the year 1896, when this policy first began, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was challenged by my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, who then said that "if the Committee thought that Egypt was going to pay when all is done they would be very gravely disappointed; sooner or later England would have to pay for the policy which had been voted was theirs, and the initiative was theirs." Well, that seemed, I think, to be a very sound statement, and after the lapse of two years that it is a statement that has been verified by the proposals and by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then denied that proposition altogether. He said "it was not an English expedition; that the Egyptian Government had undertaken the expedition." That was the policy as it was introduced to the House of Commons and the country. When my right honourable Friend said it was the policy of England, and that England would ultimately have to pay for it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

"The Egyptian Government have undertaken this expedition with their own forces and at their own cost. It is probable that some charge may be imposed upon us in connection with the despatch of special service officers and the employment of the British troops now in Egypt, but I, at any rate, have no reason to, anticipate that any of the terrible prognostications of the right honourable Gentleman will be fulfilled."

That was the view in 1896. Then in 1897 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was still predicting and stating what was the policy of the Government on this subject. He has to-night enlarged very much upon the resources of Egypt, how they are improved, how these great expeditions are going to be highly remunerative; and consequently, of course, we may expect that Egypt will have no difficulty whatever in carrying out this expedition, which is an Egyptian expedition, at its own cost, out of its own abundant resources. Sir, the right honourable Gentleman referred to a speech of mine in which I pointed out at that time, on the authority of the statements that had been made public, that it had been necessary, in consequence of these expeditions, to suspend the plans for the irrigation of the Nile. I believe since that time some accommodation has been made which has enabled that to be done to a greater extent than at the moment of which I speak. That is not the only reference in the speech. The right honourable Gentleman quoted the great authority of Lord Cromer, who, he said, quite truly, was a greater authority than I am. I am now going to quote on the question of finance a greater authority than I can pretend to be—that is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I quote from a speech which he made, in which he stated that "if it was only a question of the interests of England he should wish that we were not in Egypt." He has not referred to that at all to night. He simply deals with the benefits which he believes will accrue to Egypt from these expeditions; and therefore, when in 1896 this policy was launched, not as an English policy, but as an Egyptian policy, when we were assured at its commencement that it would be carried out at the cost of Egypt, and that the whole military conduct of the expedition would be in Egyptian hands. It is in the hands of that distinguished and able general, Sir Herbert Kitchener, and I would say the right honourable Gentleman is quite right when he said there would be on this side of the House no disparagement of the extraordinary ability, skill, and conduct which Sir Herbert Kitchener has displayed. Upon the subject of the administration of Egypt by Lord Cromer, Sir, I think there will be no difference of opinion. The very essence of all these declarations was that this expedition was to be an Egyptian expedition at the cost of Egypt. The position which Lord Cromer holds in Egypt, and the position which Sir Herbert Kitchener, the Sirdar, holds show that it is not an English expedition, but that it is an Egyptian expedition. What I have spoken of now was in 1896; but last year, in 1897, the right honourable Gentleman came forward, and, still adhering to the view that it was an Egyptian expedition, proposed a Vote—technically, it is true, in the form of a grant-in-aid—he felt, as I am sure he would feel, that in dealing with this matter he could not treat it as such, because he recommended it to the House of Commons as a loan. The right honourable Gentleman has no desire, I am sure, to take any advantage of the technical form in which the Vote was proposed.

I intended to explain that.

I was quite sure of that. So I understood from the right honourable Gentleman. The substance of the thing is contained in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was proposing that Vote. He says this—

"The terms upon which we have made the advances are these. We have made an agreement with the Egyptian Government that while the advance is outstanding"—and in the Advances are these: We have made an agree the Estimates, to which I will subsequently allude—while the advance is outstanding they shall pay 2¾ per cent, interest on the money, being the same rate paid on our own funds, and that it shall rest with the two Governments from time to time to agree as to the repayment by the Egyptian Government of the capital sum by such instalments as may be found possible and convenient. The Egyptian Government have willingly accepted that proposal."

Now, Sir, we have this statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was to be an Egyptian expedition, carried on at the expense of Egypt, and in consequence of matters, to which I need not refer, but which played a considerable part in that Debate—in consequence of what, I think, the right honourable Gentleman described as being worried by Russia and Frahce—this advance in the form of a loan was made. But mark, that advance in the form of a loan of money was ultimately to go to the English Exchequer, and be employed in the reduction of the English debt. Then the right honourable Gentleman comes forward now and says, "Though I have taken that money on the representation that it was to be a loan only, which would ultimately come into the English Exchequer, and therefore be no charge upon the British taxpayer, I now propose to remit that loan." Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman says that this is the very last demand that he is likely to make in respect of this expedition. He read to us what I thought was a very carefully prepared sentence, which contained the pledge that the expedition was not to go beyond Khartoum. It seemed to me as if the sentence had been very well considered and largely debated in the Cabinet; and I remember in the very first Debate on these subjects, when we suggested that the expedition would go to Khartoum, there was a sort of rejection in a rather horrified sceptism by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the very notion of going to Khartoum at all.

That particular expedition.

Well, is it then only to this particular expedition that the right honourable Gentleman's pledge is to be applied? Are the predictions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be equally fallacious, and his conversion to be as annual as it has proved to be in the past two years? He says: "Oh, no; we are going to smash the Mahdi at Khartoum, and we are going to do it very cheap. It is only going to cost £750,000, and though this is only a remission of loans, there are to be no loans hereafter, and no grants in aid hereafter, and the British taxpayer will never be charged with anything more hereafter. It is an Egyptian expedition; it is an Egyptian policy, for Egyptian advantage." The vanity of human hopes in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he undertakes, as I said, to make a military occupation of the Equator, is not likely to be better fulfilled in the future than in the past. This is a most remarkable transaction. The right honourable Gentleman must forgive me if he regards me as rather a financial prude in this matter. I do not like the notion of a Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down one year to get a loan to supply an expedition, and then next year to come down and say: Oh! we will turn it into a grant in aid. I read a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I thought it a very sensible speech—made in the City to the bankers, in which he expressed some disinclination to be the lender to uncivilised people—I forget the exact words—but I think they would have included the inhabitants of the Equator. Those financial statements were extremely sound, but it surprises me that he had, within a few days of that speech, to come down to turn this loan into a grant in aid. I can only say that I take quite as much objection to grants in aid for purposes of that kind as I have to loans for the purposes of the inhabitants of the Equator. Sir, the real question is, what is the liability you are proposing to undertake in this matter? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he thinks that this occupation of Khartoum and the districts in the neighbourhood of Khartoum is only to be temporary. He said he would agree with me that in the condition of Europe as it is, to lock up British forces in districts of that character and at that distance, with our limited Army, was not and is not a good or wise policy. He agrees with that opinion, and he says we shall never do anything of that kind. The troops are only to remain there, I suppose, for this autumn, and then to be withdrawn; the British troops are not to remain there. Only the Egyptian troops, on which he has entire reliance, are to be left there. I do not know how many loans or grants in aid we are going to give to the Egyptian troops left in Khartoum, but all we can now do is to protest against this policy. Upon this occasion, as to the financial Motion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must pronounce it to be in form absolutely unsound, and one against which I must enter my protest. You have no right to impose a grant of this kind upon the British taxpayer. In view of the allegation—no doubt the well-founded and bonâ-fide allegation—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year that this money was to be a loan, and was not to be charged on the British taxpayer, but was to be repaid, for the right honourable Gentleman to come down in the next year and propose to make the loan a grant in aid I do not think is sound finance. On the contrary, I think it is pregnant with great danger for the future to pursue a course of that character. Now what is the course which the right honourable Gentleman might have pursued, and which I think he ought to have pursued? He ought to have left the loan as it stood upon the allegation of last year, and come forward in his Budget this year, and said, "We are going to Khartoum, and it is going to cost £750,000 or £1,000,000, and I say I think the British Exchequer ought to contribute to this expedition;" and so dealt with it as part of the finances of the year. That would have been sound, straightforward finance. It is telling the House of Commons what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, and charging the cost in a bonâ-fide, straightforward manner upon the taxation of the year. But to make it no part of your general financial arrangements, to come forward in June with this indirect method of obtaining the money by turning into a grant in aid that which was given upon the representation that it was to be a loan, is not, in my opinion, a proper way of dealing with the finances of this country, and I must enter my protest against it altogether.

I think, Sir, that undoubtedly all those who have followed these proceedings must agree that one of the foremost objects of any Egyptian statesman must be the reconquest of Khartoum. That is certain, and I for one am not prepared to think that under proper conditions England will object to it. But there are two things which I cannot quite understand. First of all, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire says the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have dealt with this money in his Budget for the year. But, Sir, it was a supplemental Estimate last year, so that the course suggested by the right honourable Gentleman would not have been possible. What, however, I still less understand is the case, or rather the absence of a case, made out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the entire reversal of the proposal he made to this House in February last year. Sir, when I came down here to-day I anticipated that the right honourable Gentleman intended to move, as he had moved, that this debt should not be paid; but, as a further reason for that proposal, I expected him to make it in the language of the Standing Order 59, which I think would be applicable in this case, and which provides that the House shall not receive a proposal for compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, upon any branch of the revenue, without a certificate from the proper officer, "stating the debt, what prosecutions have been made for the recovery of such debt, and setting forth, how much the petitioner and his security are able to satisfy thereof." That, Sir, is the sort of language I expected the right honourable Gentleman to use; but, Sir, quite the contrary. The right honourable Gentleman draws a most roseate picture of the finances of Egypt in view of the future, and of her enormous prosperity, and having done so in a manner to make the mouth water of any Chancellor of the Exchequer he ends with a proposal that we should forgive this debt of £800,000. Well, Sir, he proposes at the same time to commit England in Egypt to a much larger extent than has ever been done before. The right honourable Gentleman opposite reminded him that in 1896 he said this was a purely Egyptian expedition, carried out by Egyptian troops and Egyptian money, but how the Egyptian troops are outnumbered by British troops, and we might fancy that Egypt was not in the affair at all; and, in addition to that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that a larger quantity of British troops are to be employed in the annexation of Khartoum than have ever been employed before. So that, while he tolls us that the burden is not greater than Egypt can bear, and that it would not be onerous, he at the same time, forsooth, makes his proposal that we should forgive this debt. To me that is perfectly incomprehensible. But what is still more incomprehensible is that part of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman which was taken up with one of those irruptions by an unaccustomed Minister into other Departments than his own, which he himself deprecated in a recent speech. No doubt he had another Minister in his mind when he was making that speech, but he has given us a striking example of the accidental and casual irruption by a Minister into a Department which is not his own, because the right honourable Gentleman not only irrupted into foreign affairs, but he irrupted into strategy. I almost thought I was listening to a field marshal when he explained the method by which the advance to Khartoum ought to be made, and the way in which the gunboats should be sent up the Nile to the farther reaches of those waters. Well, now, Sir, this grant was moved for in February, 1897, and it was moved for on the ground that the mixed tribunal in Egypt had decided that Egypt herself could not pay the expense. But here is a point on which I really trust the right honourable Gentleman will now give us some explanation. The right honourable Gentleman on that occasion absolutely derided the mixed tribunal which had given that financial decision. He said it was almost absurd, and he further told this House that it was time to reconsider the Convention, and I suppose he meant also the conduct of the tribunal—certainly that some alteration would have to be made, and it would have to be considered whether it should be allowed to interfere with the finances of Egypt and the financial relations between Egypt and England. Now, Sir, has that reconsideration taken place? If so, what is the effect? Has the right honourable Gentleman been defeated in his attempt to reconstitute this tribunal which decided against him last year? Has he succeeded or has he failed? He must have given up the mixed tribunal as a bad job, and eventually concluded that he must accept the position of last year, and the outcome of his decision is that we must let them off this debt.

The Commission is still sitting.

Oh, very well; then I think the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman is premature. If the Commission is sitting now, the mixed tribunal may yet have to reconsider its conduct last year, and may decide that Egypt had a right, after all, to expend this money; and in that case there is no necessity for the right honourable Gentleman to propose this large remission. If the matter is not yet concluded, then I say this proposal is altogether premature in being brought before the House now. The right honourable Gentleman opposite has quoted, some of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making this Motion last year, and I feel it necessary to quote some others, because I think the House will scarcely believe that a suggestion was made from those Benches that this loan Very likely would not be repaid, and that England would probably, in fact, have to pay it herself; as, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes. But what was the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer then made to that suggestion? Why, Sir, he scouted the whole suggestion. He said—

"The honourable Member for Northampton will probably find fault with me for advancing the money on too easy terms.

"Mr. Labouchere: No.

"He may say there is no technical security. That is perfectly true. Owing to their financial fetters the Egyptian Government are unable to give any such technical security. But we have the word of the Egyptian Government, which we trust, and we have this further fact—that we are in occupation of Egypt."

So that the right honourable Gentleman told us we need be under no fear as to this loan being repaid, which now he says cannot be repaid; or, rather, which he says can be repaid, but is not to be repaid—because he says Egypt is very greatly more prosperous than she was when he spoke those words. Last year he said in effect—

"We have no technical security, but we have a real, good, valuable security that we trust. We have the word of Egypt, and, in fact, we are in occupation of Egypt—we are the man in possession; and if Egypt makes any difficulty about repaying this loan, we can take some steps."

I do not know what, perhaps the annexation of the taxes on the Customs—

"to repay ourselves."

That was the answer the right honourable Gentleman made; but that is not all. The right honourable Gentleman told us in that famous phrase which we all so much admired, that this country was not going to be "worried" out of its policy by any other country. Everybody admires that phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion paled before the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Sir, when I spoke once before, the Under Secretary of State said the least dull part of my speech consisted of quotations from his. So he said with characteristic modesty, but that will not deter me from giving other quotations from one of his speeches, and I hope he will like them. The Under Secretary of State gave a description of the resources of the country to which we were asked to make this loan, which we are now requested to forgive. He said—

"The right honourable Gentleman has asked whether these advances to the Egyptian Government are ever going to be repaid; and he said we shall not be able to obtain repayment without starving the Egyptian Government. There seems to prevail an idea among some honourable Members that the Exchequer of the Egyptian Government is in an impoverished and depleted condition. What are the facts? What are the financial resources at the disposal of the Egyptian Government? They have, in the first place, a reserve fund—through the successful conversion of some parts of the debt in 1890, and from the interest on the money thus accumulated, of £2,305,000. They have, further, a general reserve fund, constituted by the decree of 1888, which, at the present moment, after deducting liabilities, shows a surplus of £2,235,000; and, finally, there is a special reserve fund, in which there is at the present moment a sum of £255,000;"

making a total altogether of resources in the hands of the Egyptian Government of £4,795,000. Then the right honourable Gentleman went on to say—

"This is the impoverished Government which we are alleged to be starving, and to which"—

and here comes the point—

"we are making an advance that cannot be repaid."

So that we see that, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs absolutely ridiculed the notion that there would be any difficulty at all on the part of Egypt in repaying the £800,000. And there was one other great passage in the speech of the Under Secretary of State. He remarked—

"The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose went on to say 'Why do you not pay this sum yourself?' I do not know whether that is a serious question. I noticed it did not excite a single cheer on his own side of the House, and I do not think it would have been received with enthusiasm upon either side."

Now mark this—

"So long as the Egyptian Government are willing and anxious to pay."

They are more prosperous this year, and probably more willing and anxious to pay but for this tyrannical Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not allow them to pay; for, so far as I can see, there is no other reason.

"So long," said the right honourable Gentleman, "as the Egyptian Government are willing and anxious to pay, I do not think we need needlessly disturb susceptibilities here by discussing whether or not we should pay."

Well, now, Sir, I say that picture of the financial position of Egypt, added to the picture given us this evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, absolutely deprives him of all justification for the Motion which he has placed before the House. Egypt willing and anxious to pay! Egypt with overflowing coffers last year, and with coffers still more overflowing this year, and yet, in spite of her willingness to pay, in spite of her anxiety, in spite of the overflowing coffers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down here as though he were representing a miserable and impoverished land, unable to pay this debt of £800,000. I do not understand it, and he has given no argument in support of the proposal at present. But, perhaps, as he has undertaken to fight the battle of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will fight the battle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not quite gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this country is liable for another million, or only for another £200,000.

I stated that altogether the contribution of this country towards the recapture of Khartoum would be less, than £1,000,000, including this £800,000, and about £145,000, I think it is, which the House voted for the expenditure on the Indian garrisons.

I now understand. In my opinion it is absolutely necessary for various reasons that Khartoum should be again a province of Egypt; but should the reconquest be made wholly or even largely at the expense of England? Are we to keep Khartoum for nothing, and to pay either all, or a large part, of the expenditure? If that be the proposal, it seems to me entirely unreasonable. If it were a British, possession, then I could well understand our undertaking the expense of the reconquest of Khartoum; but, inasmuch as our possession of Egypt is that purely of leaseholders, at the will, one might almost say, of the Powers, insomuch as we have undertaken that in Egypt we will neither gain nor seek any advantages for ourselves that are not shared absolutely and completely by every other Power, and inasmuch as even the canal itself has been placed by the Convention of 1888 in such a position that, apparently, if we were at war with China and Russia, we should, we being in the occupation of Egypt, have to allow a Russian vessel to sail through the canal that would attack our fleet at China—inasmuch as we are in this strange and anomalous position in Egypt, I do not think we ought to be asked to remit a large part of this loan. It seems to me that before the House is asked to forego the repayment of the loan some grounds at least should be shown to us that Egypt is unable to repay it. No ground has been shown, either political or financial, why this country should be asked to pay this £800,000, and I therefore think it is extremely difficult to support the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman.

I have listened with interest to the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that if he had been speaking to an Egyptian Parliament, instead of to the British Parliament, I could well have understood what he said. As I listened to his speech the question ran through my mind as to what reason he would give why the taxpayers of the United Kingdom should remit this loan of £800,000, but the reason never came. He gave a very glowing picture of the condition of Egypt, but I am perfectly certain that he would not deny for a moment that every penny spent by the Egyptian Government in the invasion of the Soudan has been so much money taken from the most urgent and beneficial reforms in Egypt itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to minimise what he called the next step. He told us—and I listened to the speech with very great satisfaction as being almost the first statement of the policy we have had on the subject—that the Government have no intention whatever, as I gathered, of taking any steps to conquer certain provinces of the Soudan. Well, so far so good. But I am bound to say, Mr. Lowther, that I fail entirely to gather any adequate reason why the ratepayers of the United Kingdom are to be called upon to remit this loan. This proposal raises, of course, the question of the whole policy of the Government in the Soudan. I am not going to detain the Committee at length, but I will endeavour to express my opinion on that point, since circumstances naturally called my attention to the subject last winter when I was in Egypt. I returned from Egypt feeling that the termination of the occupation of Egypt was not a question of practical politics. I returned with a rooted conviction and the strongest possible feeling that this incursion into the Soudan, with the exception of very narrow limits—of which I will speak in a moment—had been to Egypt most disastrous, for it has taken the minds of those who are responsible for the government of Egypt off other questions, and has postponed reforms which are extremely desirable. We have had no statement from the Government why the policy of Lord Salisbury, so clearly laid down by him in 1888, has been departed from. I will not dwell upon the military aspect of the matter except to recall one event, the importance of which looms much larger in Egypt than in this House, and that is the invasion of Egypt by the followers of the Mahdi in 1889. They were absolutely defeated and routed, not by the assistance of British troops, but by the Egyptian Army under the leadership of the then Sir Francis Grenfell. From, that day to this the idea of the invasion of the Dervishes on any practical scale has been treated as absolutely chimerical. There has been no practical danger since. Now, what is the position now? In 1896, after years of peace—1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895—a new policy was started. Lord Cromer remarked in a Report which he wrote on the 3rd of February, 1896, "the Dervishes maintain a strictly defensive attitude." The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came down to this House on the 16th of March, 1896, and in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, unfolded a new policy—a policy of the invasion of the Soudan, and placed it upon three bases. He said it was (1) to protect the frontier of Egypt; (2) to form a granary for Egypt in Dongola; and (3) to assist the Italians. In relation to that the right honourable Gentleman read three somewhat panic-stricken telegrams. He made statements which turned out to be quite chimerical. As to Dongola, I may remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a special report has been published, containing a most lamentable account of the Province of Dongola. Dongola is a wild waste, the male population is almost extinct, and therefore for a very considerable time the province of Dongola, even under the most capable administration, cannot add anything to the riches of Egypt. Turning to the military aspect of the advance, nobody can admire more than I do, putting aside the question of killing and wounding, the precision and admirable method in which the military operations have been carried on, and which have been largely due to the fact that the Sirdar has kept his own counsel. Coming to the political aspect, I say no reason has been given for the departure from Lord Salsbury's declaration in 1888. His words were, and it is vital to bear them in mind—

"We do not depart in any degree from the policy of leaving the Soudan. As to the obligation which the noble and gallant Earl would impose on us, the duty of restoring it could only be carried out by a large and costly expedi- tion entailing an enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure, and for the present a continuous expenditure, which I do not think the people of this country would sanction."

I ask, what reason has been given to the House of Commons for departing from this policy? In 1896 the Secretary of State for the Colonies spoke, and he gave some indication of what our policy was to be. Then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that our policy was limited. The House of Commons has been called upon to vote sums of money under what I call a limited liability policy. But I ask, what British interest will be served by this incursion into the Soudan? Where do the interests of our constituents come in in this matter? That is the question I wish to drive home to the Committee. This is, as I take it, a policy of aggression. It cannot be called a policy of defence. It is not necessary for us to secure Egypt. It is a policy, I submit, which is punitive, and similar to what took place in 1884. I certainly do think that the Committee have been somewhat unfairly treated in the matter of procedure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took some credit to himself for having made this Motion at all, hinting that it was not really needful. But I respectfully join issue with him there. He will find nothing in our procedure which is more carefully framed than the system which deals with the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. In 1864 it was laid down that it was necessary to submit to the Committee of Supply the Resolution to remit a loan. I say that the right honourable Gentleman ought not, therefore, to take credit to himself for the way in which this matter has been brought before the House. We ought to have had some notice of it. There should have been in the notice of Motion some indication of the nature of the Resolution which the right honourable Gentleman was going to propose. In my humble judgment, these financial resolutions ought themselves to appear on the Paper. They involve grave issues. Why, only this year, the right honourable Gentleman himself withdrew a financial resolution in connection with the Irish Local Government Bill. As regards finance, as I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed himself to the assertion that this £800,000 is the only sum we shall be called upon to pay—

No, no.

I understood the right honourable Gentleman committed himself to that, but as we are in Committee perhaps I may put to him the specific question.

No one can foresee what may ultimately happen; but, having consulted the best authorities at hand, that is the sum which I am told will suffice.

I am obliged for the answer which I understand is the best the right honourable Gentleman can give, and which, I take it, is as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer can go. I hope that he will turn out a good prophet in that respect; because, Sir, undoubtedly these expressions were used by the right honourable Gentleman last year. He said, with regard to security, that we had the word of the Egyptian Government, and we had the occupation of the country. Coming to the political question, as I have said, I do not regard this matter as at all bound up with that of the occupation of Egypt. At Darlington, in October, 1896, the right honourable Gentleman said—

"I do not hesitate to say that, in the interests of England, I wish we were not in Egypt. It imposes upon us a responsibility which in very conceivable circumstances might become a very grave responsibility indeed."

All I desire to do is to call attention to the fact; and I do remember that the right honourable Gentleman said last year that certain action might impose upon us a longer occupation of Egypt than we had at first anticipated. No one can be ignorant, even without special knowledge of the subject, of what takes place in Europe—what a source of international friction and jealousy this occupation of Egypt is. Then I want to ask again, from the British standpoint, what are we to gain by this invasion? What, after all, are the geographical and historical aspects of this matter? There is no such place as Khartoum. It has disappeared. The districts of the Soudan, are now comparatively buried, and must be a great drain if governed by Egypt. Traversing the Nile, you will observe from certain landmarks where Egyptian Government began and ended; and you will find from time immemorial that the Soudan was never governed by Egypt. They had, indeed, some troops there, but from an administrative point of view the Soudan has always been outside the sphere of Egyptian government. And this has been true during the epochs of the Pharaohs, Ptolemies, Romans, and down to the present day. As Lord Salisbury has said, we have more territory than we know what to do with. That is a sentiment I heartily concur in. I am alarmed, Sir, at the responsibilities which might be entailed by this country in any attempt to reconquer the Soudan. For, after all, we must admit it is we who do these things. It is not the Egyptians. We are the initiators. We find, practically, a large proportion of the money. Again, Sir, I would like to say that the right honourable Gentleman did not tell us what military force it is intended to add to the forces in Egypt. But, perhaps his colleague, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, will give us a few particulars on that head. I challenge the Government to prove that they have the people with them in the policy they have assumed. There was no whisper of it a few years ago. Surely there are other more advantageous outlets to which we might address our energy, and over which we might spend our money, than this Soudan invasion. I have no hesitation in saying what I believe to be the opinion of people outside this House, and what I know to be that of my constituents, and it is one of hearty deprecation. Forming the best judgment I can, and leaving the question of Egypt out altogether, I have no hesitation in voting against the remission of this loan.

On the question of this advance to Khartoum, Mr. Lowther, I am prepared to repeat the opinion I expressed a few years ago, that in the interests of Egypt primarily, and of ourselves, this advance was a mistake. I spoke from the consideration of the cost in men and money. Those reasons which prevailed in my mind then are equally strong now and lead me to the conclusion that this policy of ours is altogether an error. I would like to say a word about the financial aspect of the question. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us to remit the sum of £800,000 which was advanced last year, although it was not so entered in the records of the House. The Commissioners of the Caisse had voted nearly half a million of money towards the expedition. But the tribunals interested in that Act pronounced it to be beyond the powers of the Commissioners of the Caisse to perform. The question has never been raised, and probably never will be raised, as to whether the Egyptian Government had the power to borrow money up to one million. It is quite true that they have the power to borrow to that extent. ["No, no!"] The Egyptian Government have power to borrow up to that extent, but it must be construed as part of their general administration, and if the advance of the money by the committee of the Caisse for the purposes of the expedition was improper, it might also be argued that the borrowing of money for that purpose was also invalid. The point now left before the Committee is the remission of this sum of £800,000. I understood my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say ha proposed this remission on the ground that if once given to Egypt no future financial embarrassments are to be expected in regard to this expedition, and no further claim can be made upon us. The right honourable Gentleman referred to Lord Cromer's Report, which was, no doubt, of a roseate character, especially with regard to the fact that during the last year there had been an actual, reduction of the debt of Egypt by £200,000. But I think that reduction has been made by leaving out of account the £800,000 owing to us. I agree with the honourable Member in this, that from the financial point of view the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was scarcely sufficiently explicit. I should like to have the balance laid before us of the Egyptian Administration last year and the balance of the Egyptian Administration in the current year.

I think I can put the right honourable Gentleman right on the point he has just mentioned. I will read the paragraph from Lord Cromer's Report:—

"The Guaranteed Three per Cent. Loan has been reduced by about £70,000, and Egyptian stock to the extent of £730,000 has been purchased by the Commission of the Debt. These two reductions, making together a sum of £800,000, stand on a different footing to the reductions made in the Daira and Domains loans. They represent real redemption of debt effected out of the proceeds of taxation. On the other hand, the Egyptian Government owes £E780,000 to Her Majesty's Government and, as I have explained in dealing with the special reserve fund, only £E209,000 is available as an asset to meet this liability, thus leaving a deficit on this account of £E571,500. The most accurate and comprehensible manner of stating the net result of these operations is, I think, to say that, in spite of the expenses of the Soudan expedition, the aggregate indebtedness of Egypt has during the past year been decreased by the difference between £E780,000 and £E571,000."

I think my right honourable Friend is right in saying that the £800,000 was taken into account. Of course that makes the matter very important with respect to the future. You are going to remit this £800,000, to leave the borrowing powers of the Egyptian Government unencumbered. Under the circumstances I should like a little fuller exposition of the financial situation in Egypt on the part of my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The situation is such that even in the present year the Egyptian Government have a deficiency, and you are relieving them. The deficiency exists, and it may very well be a recurrent deficiency. Although I hail with great satisfaction the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that Khartoum is the ultimate point to be reached, and that no military operations will be carried beyond that, we all know from our experience in India, as well as in Egypt, the failure of hopes of this kind, and how a Government may be led from point to point. Although I have a strong opinion against the impolicy of the advance, I shall not vote against this or similar remissions, as they are likely to bring home to the people of this country some of the results of the policy which has been pursued.

When this Vote was suddenly sprung upon us two years ago we had just re- ceived the Report of Lord Cromer, making not the slightest allusion to any possibility of an expedition to the Soudan. The Government, in announcing this expedition, floundered between various reasons, one contradictory of the other. They told us that the Khalifa intended to make an offensive attack on Wady Haifa. I looked to sea what Lord Cromer said upon the subject. He said absolutely nothing on the subject. There was not; the slightest intention to make such an attack. Then we were told that this was an ancient province of Egypt, and we were bound to restore it, and that the wicked Liberals, with Mr. Gladstone at their head, had told the Egyptians that they were not to be allowed to go vanquishing the Soudan for Egypt, and that the Egyptians ought to do it themselves. We were led to suppose that these ardent warriors were longing to go there. There is no doubt that many of the Egyptian soldiers had not the slightest desire to go to the Soudan. There was another, and still more extraordinary reason. We were told at the time that we were going in order to help Italy out of a difficulty. Italy had lost a battle in Abyssinia, and we were told that we ought to go down and give aid to Italy. The only reason not urged at that time was that it was our interest to go there. We were told—and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the soft impeachment—that Egypt was to pay the money.

For the Dongola expedition.

Does the right honourable Gentleman make a distinction between one portion of the expedition and another portion? We are told that the Egyptians were going to advance until they encountered serious resistance, but everyone knew that they did not encounter serious resistance, and we thought that rather a joke on the part of the Government. The Government intended to carry out their own policy; they endeavoured to loot the Egyptian Caisse de la Dette. It was only when we were compelled to restore the money that the Government came down and asked us for a loan. It was stated to be a loan; and I think we ought to pin the right honourable Gentleman to the promise he gave us. We did not so strenuously oppose the advance of the money, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a loan. I trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what is the position that I find myself in—I and my constituents, who put trust in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The right honourable Gentleman talked about philanthropy. It makes me sick to hear a Minister of the Crown talk about philanthropy in these matters, because I know that there is some policy of grab or robbery at the bottom of it. We are such consummate hypocrites that there is no philanthropy in these matters at all. We only consider our own interests, and though we sometimes plead that we went to these countries to spread the Christian religion or to civilise the uncivilised people, that reason, however excellent, is not the one which urges us to go there. Now, this province is to be added to the Soudan. Why? When it was added to Egypt before Gordon said it was a perfect hell upon earth. It did not pay then, and it never will pay. Since the historical commencement of the world silly people have endeavoured to conquer the Soudan. The first person was King Cambyses, and he was immediately shut up as a lunatic; and up to the time of Ismail Pasha, no sensible person has attempted to conquer the Soudan, for the simple reason that the Soudan is not worth conquering. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out of his way to explain how rich Egypt is. It would appear that Egypt was better off than this country, because while we have been obliged to give up this year the normal amount to pay off the national debt, Egypt possessed money to pay off her debt. Why, in the name of goodness, are we to be called upon to pay it off? During the Parliament of 1880 I must have divided against my own party at least a hundred times with reference to expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of those who voted with me, and he will remember that on one occasion when I had him voting with me I very nearly beat the Government of the time. But now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking the Committee to sanction the expenditure of more money against the protests which he himself made at that time.

I objected to the waste of money.

That is precisely why I am objecting to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now. But about this one million, I could not quite follow what was said regarding it. Am I to understand that during all this time Egypt has been paying out of the money for the soldiers who have been sent there? Is Egypt paying on the same scale now, or is this country paying the normal cost of the regiments, and Egypt the extra cost?

We are paying the normal cost.

In that case it will cost us more, because we are providing more troops. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says Egypt will repay this. The right honourable Gentleman will, no doubt, agree generally with the statement that when money is advanced to a friend the prospect of getting paid was not by any means sure. Who is paying for the money we are spending now?

Egypt.

It is doubtful, however, whether Egypt has a right to borrow money, and if the revenues did not allow her to meet the normal expenditure, then we should have to pay this £750,000. But Egypt can only pay if things go well. Supposing the Khalifa does resist more than the right honourable Gentleman anticipates, and that the war costs more, who then would pay? The right honourable Gentleman does not say that Egypt could pay. Egypt could not pay out of revenue, and consequently we should have to pay it. At present it is intended to have a real occupation of the country; but how does the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that there will not be further outbreaks there, or that the Khalifa, when he retires to Kordofan, will not harass the frontier? How does the right honourable Gentleman know that only Egyptian troops will be necessary? Looking at the experience of per- sistent rebellions in Uganda, it is only reasonable to anticipate that if the Khalifa harasses the frontier and joins with the turbulent Arabs in the Soudan, then we will be obliged to again strengthen the Egyptian Army by sending more regiments there. Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that nothing would be done beyond taking Khartoum, and then he qualified that by raying that there would be no expeditions on a large scale. Therefore, if they are not on a large scale they will be on a small scale, and these small expeditions were always exceedingly costly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there were tribes imploring us to come to their aid. If we are running this business on philanthropic lines, on what plea can we object to go a little further, and to prevent the massacre of other tribes by the Khalifa? Sir, the fact is, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is "too knowing by half." I look to him as my guardian angel as regards finance, but, unfortunately, my faith in the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been rudely shaken of late. There is nothing so painful as for a man to be told that he is a firm man. When I saw it mentioned in the newspapers that the one peculiar characteristic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he was a firm man, I knew at once that the right honourable Gentleman would be an infirm man with regard to money; I knew that he would join in these expeditions, and now the right honourable Gentleman seems to be perfectly ready to supply to anybody, except the unfortunate English people, money to carry out any wild scheme suggested by any of his colleagues. We cannot say we will go thus far and no farther. When we went into Central Africa we went into a hornets' nest. If we are really inclined to spend money in foreign countries in order to push our commerce surely it is infinitely more reasonable to spend it in a country densely inhabited, like China, than in Africa, which is inhabited by savages. The whole occupation of Egypt has been a mistake from beginning to end. We promised to leave it, but by not doing so foreign countries can always respond that we have been guilty of bad faith; the absurdity being that it is no gain or advantage to us to remain there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed himself in these terms, but Lord Salisbury has expressed himself more strongly; he said our tenure of Egypt was a permanent danger to us. And yet, notwithstanding this, we are pushing forward into the Soudan. It is a gratification to me, and to all sensible persons, that we should have to pay for the follies we have committed. If the Government had come forward frankly, and said, "You will have to pay for this," I should have said, "We will pay for it." But we must take the arguments of the Government for what they are worth. They told us that Egypt would pay for this, and it seems to me that we have legitimate grounds for keeping the Government to the bargain, and, so long as they remain in power, to insist on the carrying out of their promise and assurance that this was a loan, that it should be repaid, and should not come upon us. Sir, it is perfectly terrible the way the Government are going on in the matter of reckless expenditure. They seem to be like a young man who has come into an estate which has been brought together by the ability of his father. My right honourable Friend the Member for Monmouthshire, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, added to the revenue a large amount per annum by his excellent tax upon estates. The present Government got the benefit of that, and, because they happened to live in good years and got a surplus, they went wandering over the whole face of the globe, like another person, seeking whom they might devour, or how they might get rid of this money. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer fulfil his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer; let him not be led aside by his colleagues, let him offer a stalwart resistance to them, and then again I shall feel that confidence in him which, as I have already told him, has been not a little shaken of late.

There is one remark of the honourable Member for Northampton to which I wish chiefly, if not entirely, to refer. The honourable Member knows, as well as anybody in this House, that France made promises with regard to Tunis, as precise, if not more precise, than any we ever entered into regarding Egypt, and if ever we are called upon by France to retire from Egypt we have a right to demand her retirement from Tunis. For myself, I should regret, in the interests of Tunis, that France ever should retire from the country. I think it is desirable, for the sake of the Tunisians, that a civilising Power like France should remain there. Still, like many honourable Members and other people, I regret that what I may call the Tunis card was not played when it might have been played, and that Government after Government refused to win the game with the card they held in their hands. The honourable Member for the Rushcliffe Division spoke of this expedition into the Soudan as "a policy of aggression, not of defence," and the honourable Member for Bodmin also referred to it as a "foolish policy"—I think these were his words. I desire, however, to refer chiefly to what was said by the honourable Member for the Rushcliffe Division. The honourable Member said this was a policy of aggression, not of defence. On the contrary, I think this expedition into the Soudan is undoubtedly an expedition of defence, because it is an expedition for the preservation of the very life of Egypt. It has been asked in this House, "Why was not the policy of Lord Salisbury, expressed 10 years ago, adhered to?" Surely it is within the knowledge of the Committee that there have been approaches towards the upper waters of the Nile by foreign Powers within the last 10 years which put the Nile in distinct danger! Surely these honourable Members know that Atbara and the Nile at Khartoum, if not in the possession of the rulers of Egypt, are in danger of being diverted! This idea was given expression to by Sir Samuel Baker in a letter which appeared in the Times on 12th October, 1888. In it Sir Samuel Baker says—

"An enemy in possession of the Blue Nile and the Atbara river could, by throwing a dam across the empty bed during the dry season, effectually deflect the stream when risen by the Abyssinian rains, and thus prevent the necessary flow towards Egypt."

In a further passage in the same letter Sir Samuel Baker says—

"I have seen a spot about 230 miles from the mouth of the Atbara where the river might be deflected without difficulty and be forced to an eastern course towards the Red Sea."

Again, Sir Samuel Baker says—

"If I were myself an enemy of Egypt, I know the place where I should commence the fatal work upon the river Atbara."

That is one very great authority. Here is another. Sir C. Scott Moncrieff, in a lecture delivered before the Royal Institution on 26th January, 1895, said with regard to Khartoum—

"Supposing that they (the Italians) occupied Khartoum, the first thing that they would naturally and very properly do would be to spread the waters of the Lower Nile over the Soudan, and no nation in Europe understood irrigation so well as they. What would then become of Egypt's cotton crops?"

I think it is obvious, if we take such authorities as these, that this expedition is a matter of defence, and not of aggression. It is perfectly obvious that the possessor of the river at Khartoum, even if not actually hostile to Egypt, might think it necessary for the fertilisation of the land to divert the waters of the Nile. Supposing some of these enemies of Egypt were in possession of Khartoum, that enemy could dictate terms to England, and tell us that, unless we cleared out of the country, they would divert the waters of the Nile and utterly ruin Egypt. I would remind honourable Members that it is as true to-day as in the time of Herodotus that "Egypt is the gift of the Nile." Another reason which I might urge to show the advisability of Egypt holding Khartoum is the importance of the nilometer which measures the rise and fall of the Nile, and enables the officials to make provision in accordance with the height of the river at Khartoum. Objection has been taken to the gift of this money to Egypt. But Egypt pays to the Turkish Loan £72,000, which is supposed to go to the support of the country, but is diverted by England in payment of the 1855 Turkish Loan. To that extent, therefore, Egypt relieves the liability of France and the liability of this country in respect of that loan. And it is rather curious that, if we divide the £72,000 of the Egyptian contribution into halves, and assign one half to France and the other half to England, the money will result to just about the interest on this million which we propose to assign to Egypt. Therefore, we may, at all events, comfort ourselves by thinking that Egypt has been saving France and ourselves from liability on behalf of bankrupt Turkey, and that we are now, as it were, making a slight return to Egypt for the advance she has already given us. We have listened pretty often to speeches by the honourable Member for Northampton very much on the same lines as that which he has given us this evening. I sincerely hope that the Government will carry out their policy, and that before very long this House will be able to congratulate the Egyptian and the English troops on being in possession of Khartoum.

Mr. Lowther, I shall not detain the Committee more than two or three minutes while I try to point out that very little has been said to-night with regard to the policy the Government have in view in the Khartoum expedition. A great deal has been said with much force on both sides of the House about the financial policy with regard to Egypt, but we have heard very little about the policy which has dictated the financial policy. As my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton pointed out, when the expedition was originally undertaken various reasons were given which were inconsistent with one another, and none of which appear to be now the reason in view. One reason given is the restoration of these provinces to civilization; but I cannot think that is the real reason of their policy, because no one would contend that we should spend British money—money which we are obliged to refuse to India, whatever her needs—for mere philanthropic objects. I want to know whether or not, and to what extent, the Government have in view the control of the Nile between Uganda and Khartoum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed to-night to the immediate policy that is to be pursued. We are told that between September 15th and 17th Khartoum is to be taken.

I did not fix any day.

Oh, no; but the Sirdar makes no secret of the day he intends to enter Khartoum. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were pushing the gunboats up the Nile with the view to opening up trade and establishing friendly relations with the tribes; but is there, or is there not, an idea of reasserting the sovereignty of Egypt over the equatorial provinces? As this will be the last opportunity which it will have for a long time of discussing this policy, I do not think the House of Commons should allow this occasion to pass without asking the Government to inform us what is their policy with regard to the Nile beyond Khartoum. Sir, we are obliged to ask these questions, because the Members of the Government are not always so absolutely agreed amongst themselves in their declarations on this subject as to make it thoroughly safe to trust any one of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of peace. He naturally, by the office he holds, desires to contract the obligations of this country so far as they may have financial consequences; but sometimes we have known the Chancellor of the Exchequer overruled, and his policy declared to be no longer the policy of the Government. Unless the Committee take very careful note of the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—only personally it seems, so far as I gather—with regard to the future of the Nile valley, we shall find ourselves committed later on by those who have successfully, in a military sense, pushed on to Khartoum, to responsibilities beyond that point. There are many men, and some powerful men, in the councils of the Government, who have all along not hesitated to defend this expedition as an expedition which was to carry the British power, virtually the British power, from Egypt through to Uganda. That is not the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to-night. What we really want to know, in giving this money to the Egyptian Government, is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statements are the avowed and seriously adopted policy of the Government, which is to be maintained in the future as well as on this particular occasion.

In this discussion we are departing from the main points before us. There is no doubt that the brilliant achievements of the troops in Egypt are not only popular, but achievements of which we are all proud. I for one am glad to hear that, the Government are encouraging the idea of going on to Khartoum, and completing the conquest of that part of the Soudan; but when it is suggested that we should make this loan into a gift to Egypt a number of circumstances arise which make us ask: Is it right that the constituencies of this country should have to pay this sum? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER interrupted.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says they have paid it. That is rather quibbling. If you pay a sum of money as a loan you expect to get it back. I do not think that is an interruption worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real question we are discussing is whether this money sent to Egypt shall continue as a loan, or whether it should be handed over to Egypt by the constituencies of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn stated with justice, really gave us no reason for converting this loan into a gift. Further than that, I should say that the whole tenor of the arguments and discussion has clearly shown that Egypt is in a condition financially able to pay this, and, I think, financially able and willing to pay it. We must remember that this is a sum of money amounting to £300 for every constituency in this country—many of them very poor; and I think we have a right to ask, Are those constituencies willing that this loan should be made into a gift to a prosperous and go-ahead country like Egypt? Sir, the question of India has been incidentally referred to. I would ask would it not be more reasonable for this House to make a grant of a million sterling to India, which has had famine, plague, pestilence, and all manner of troubles, including war? Surely we ought, in justice to ourselves, to look after our own dependencies in the first instance. I think it is reasonable that the taxpayer of this country will ask himself, Why are we going to make this loan into a gift? Why is it thought necessary for this Government, who are talking of the enormous expenditure of this country, and looking with apprehension at the enormous growth of that expenditure, to make this gift of money to Egypt? If Egypt was in such a miserable condition as to need it, I could understand the proposal; but inasmuch as the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed clearly and conclusively that the finances of Egypt have, by the wise administration of this country, been developed and improved, so as to leave Egypt in a very prosperous condition, I ask on what possible grounds can we go to our constituents and defend this grant? I think that if the country was to be asked to vote on this question, the constituencies would give a very decided answer hostile to the proposal. No reasons are given for this policy, which I do not believe is a wise policy; for, while this country is generous in the extreme, and is always ready to assist other countries when in distress, it will not willingly make a large grant to a country like Egypt, which is even more flourishing than we are at the present time. I think there must be some other reason for this, gift. Lord Salisbury in 1896 stated:

"The borrowing powers of Egypt are very narrow; they have a very narrow limit."

I cannot help thinking this must be the explanation of this grant, that although this was made as a loan last year, it is found that the Egyptian Government cannot practically take it. If that is so, I think it would be better for the Government to say distinctly that that is the reason why they make this vote. Unless that is the reason, I must, agree with the honourable Member far King's Lynn that I cannot understand it. The constituencies will ask for explanations on this point, and if a satisfactory explanation is not given, they will not approve. I protest in the name of my constituents against this heavy burden, and I think that, unless some better explanation is given, the country will not endorse the policy of the Government.

What I am anxious to know is whether the House and the country will be called upon to make a similar grant next year? I listened very carefully to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have first to say that the calculations on which he based his assumption that Egypt would be able to provide for the expenses of the present expedition to Khartoum were exceedingly misty and hazy. Last year the Government obtained the approval of this loan by the Committee on the clear understanding that it was to be a loan, and a loan on which interest was to be paid at such a rate that no loss whatever would fall on the Exchequer of this country, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a Motion such as we are now called upon to support, he ought to be prepared with some justification for it, and for the great departure in policy which it involves. The right honourable Gentleman ought to have made out a case, and given us some facts and figures to show that Egypt is in a more impecunious position, that things have gone worse with Egypt from a financial point of view, than he anticipated when he called on the Committee to make the loan. But he has done the very reverse. He has told us that the policy of the Government has been a magnificent success, and that in this year—and this makes the case worse—the Egyptian Government have been able to apply a million of money to the reduction of debt, after paying their way. I think that a more astonishing proposition was never made in the British House of Commons than to turn this loan into a gift without one single argument in favour of such a course being given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right honourable Gentleman said last year that Egypt could repay this loan, and now he comes and asks us to make it a gift. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for the loan he was not unaware that the Khartoum expedition was in view. On the contrary, before the loan was asked for, and during the Debate, he plainly stated to the House that it was the intention of the Government not to stop until they had recaptured Khartoum. Therefore he was perfectly aware last year of the military operations which he alluded to to-night, and yet, in spite of that fact, and in spite of the prosperity of Egypt, he now asks us to turn this loan into a free gift. One honourable Member said he rejoiced that this country was called upon to pay this; he said this was in reality the policy of the British Government, and that it was a wholesome thing for the constituents of this country that they should have the responsibility brought home to them by being called upon to pay some of the cost of the policy which has been forced upon Egypt. That argument should apply to India with far greater force than to Egypt. In India, in a year of distress, famine, and plague, you forced on the people, who are absolutely under the control of the Home Government, a cruel and unjust war, and by so doing, placed an enormous burden upon a country which is infinitely poorer than Egypt. Yet not one shilling will the Government vote for the assistance of the people of India, while they go out of their way to give £800,000 to a nation who, according to their own account, have been able to save a million of money over and above paying their way. I therefore claim that one of the things we have to consider to-night is this, that not only are we giving this £800,000 to Egypt as a free gift, but we are setting a precedent which will undoubtedly result in further demands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer most cautiously avoided any pledge on behalf of the Government that he would not come to this House next year or the year after and demand a further sum for the expenses of the Khartoum expedition. I have examined the Egyptian Budget, which is prepared in Lord Cromer's Report, and in that Budget it is stated that no provision whatever is made for extra military expenses in connection with the expedition, so that Egypt has no resources, according to the Budget, to pay for the advance to Khartoum. Where is that money to come from? It can come from only two sources—either by loan from this country or by borrowing on the open market; and it is a very grave question whether it is legal for the Egyptian Government to borrow on the open market for an expedition to Khartoum. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Egyptian Army, with a contingent of British troops, is to advance to Khartoum with no resources whatever to meet expenses except what the Egyptian Government may be able to borrow on the open market. If I am wrong, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me. What is to happen if the experience of two years ago is repeated, if, when this army is on the march, it should suddenly be found, that according to the laws of Egypt, which are so complicated that even Lord Cromer has misunderstood them in the last few years, the Egyptian Government has no power to borrow on the open market? Are you going to leave the joint Army without resources and without supplies on the way to Khartoum? At any moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer may come down and tell us that the case is urgent, that the Army is without supplies, and that Egypt is without resources to supply the wants of the Army. I do not think the Committee have been treated fairly in this matter. The Government ought to tell the House of Commons fairly and fully what they intend to do, and to what extent they propose that the British Exchequer should be made to pay. There is another point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When debating this loan last year, the right honourable Gentleman promised that the expenditure of this £800,000 should be audited and the accounts laid on the Table. I have never been able to find these accounts.

They were in Lord Cromer's annual report of last year.

Yes, I saw that report; but that is not such an account as should be placed before a Committee of this House. To give three or four rough items in an official report is not fair and reasonable. I shall support the honourable Member for Rushcliffe in the division because I object to the policy of advance in the Soudan. If this grant were refused by this House, it might, and I daresay it would, be an injustice to the people of Egypt, because we all know this policy was forced upon them, but it will have the effect of stopping the advance in the Soudan. I shall vote against this gift to Egypt for another reason I know that if we remit this loan this year, we shall be called upon to make another grant next year, and the year after. The very same arguments will be used with additional force by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more funds. I protest still more strongly against this Vote as an Irish Member at a time when a large number of my countrymen are in great distress, and in want of the bare necessaries of life.

I do not desire to go again into the question of policy. I have explained that as fully as it is possible to explain it until Khartoum is actually taken. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean invited me to make a further declaration, but it would be altogether premature to do so. But it is upon the question of finance that the principal part of this Debate has turned, and upon that question I wish to say a few words. The right honour able Member for West Monmouthshire has said that at the time of the Dongola expedition I laid it down that the expenditure was Egyptian expenditure, and that I did not expect that Parliament would have anything to provide. That was so, no doubt, and my expectation, would have been fulfilled but for the action of the mixed tribunal, which directed that £528,000 should be paid back to the Caisse. The Egyptian Government had then to be placed in funds in order that the money might be replaced in the Caisse. The right honourable Gentleman next accused me of unsound finance in this particular matter, and I gathered that his accusation was not so much that I had proposed that this loan should be treated as a grant, as that I had not made provision for the recapture of Khartoum in the Budget of the year. I do not think I am guilty of that charge. I have every respect for the opinion of the right honourable Gentleman on financial matters, but it does appear to me that to have maintained this £798,000 as a loan and to have asked the House to provide in the Budget a similar sum for a free grant in respect of the advance, would have been to make two bites at a cherry. The result to Egypt would have been, so far as I can see, precisely the same, and I do not suppose that the taxpayers of this country would have been specially gratified by such an arrangement. The money was required for the advance on Khartoum, and I think the method which I have proposed is the simplest, and, therefore the best, method of providing it. The provision of the money has been attacked on two different grounds. It has been suggested, on the one hand, that Egypt is so rich that she can herself provide for the whole of these proceedings; and it has been suggested on the other hand that she is so poor that in all cases of expenditure in the future it will be necessary for her to call upon us. Well, these arguments contradict each other; and therefore I need not reply to them, elaborately. I have already shown that if there had been no advance from Berber on Khartoum this sum of £798,000 might very properly have remained as a loan, to be repaid at a future date by Egypt. But the decision that there should be an advance, having regard to the expenses consequent on that decision, necessitates that some steps should be taken to help Egypt to bear the burden. If aid were not given, the advance could not be made, and I very much question whether any honourable Members really contend that, having gone so far, it is possible to stop where we are, and not to advance to the capture of Khartoum. Sir, if that be so it settles the whole question. The honourable

The Committee will remember that two years ago a certain sum of money was given to England by the Agricultural Rates. Relief Act, that sum being calculated upon half the amount of the total agricultural rates in England. At that time the amount of money which in the same year for kindred purposes was voted to Scotland was determined by what I may call the equivalent grant ratio of eleven-eightieths of the money which had been voted to England. This year, as the Committee are aware, there is a Bill before the House under which a pecuniary subvention is given to Ireland calculated, not in respect to any ratio as existing between Ireland and the sum of money devoted in England under the Act to which I have referred, but upon the same basis as the English Bill—namely, one-half of the total agricultural rates raised in Ireland. Now, it was obvious, of course, that if the provision for Scotland had been allowed to remain upon the footing of two years ago, Scotland would certainly have fared much the worse of the three kingdoms. Accordingly, as honourable Members are aware, at an early period of the present Session a promise was given by my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Scottish claim should be considered on the same basis, as that which had been given effect to, first in the English, and, secondly, in the Irish grants. Accordingly, the amount of money which I shall recommend the Committee to give will put the Scottish upon the same footing as the English and the Irish. The amount of money the honourable Members will find when they see the Bill will perhaps strike them at the first moment with a certain sense of unfamiliarity, although I think a few words of explanation will make them see how it is. The proportion of the money to be given to Scotland is seven-sixteenths. Now, the way we arrive at the seven-sixteenths is this: at the first sight it is a curious figure, but, of course, the sum which we have already got, and continue to get from year to year under the Bill of two years ago, was calculated upon the basis of the eleven-eightieths of the English grant. That is taken as a credit entry, as it were, and all that we can expect to get now is the difference between that sum and the full half of the sum received from Scotland upon the agricultural rates. Now, I daresay honourable Members will remember that there is this difference between Scotland and England. In Scotland buildings are rated along with the agricultural land, but in England the buildings are separated from the agricultural land. Therefore, if you give Scotland the whole half of the agricultural rate, you would be giving Scotland more than you would be giving England. Now, the calculation which was made at the time of the English Act was that the buildings represented one-eighth of the total valuation. Therefore, inasmuch as we are remitting one-half of that sum, and one-half of one-eighth is one-sixteenth, deducting that from one-half of the rate, that leaves seven-sixteenths. That is done in order to make it absolutely equal with the English demand, and to secure exactly the balance of the English sum. Now that, I think, is all I really need say as to the sum of money which it is proposed here should be voted.

How much will that be?

Of course, I cannot tell the exact sum, for this reason: we do not know at the present time what the owners rate is, but, according to the calculations which we have made, and which we have no doubt are nearly accurate, the total sum will be £95,000, and under that proposal the Scotch will receive identical treatment, so far as the amount is concerned, with England.

Is the right honourable Gentleman going back to the year 1896?

I am not going back any further than the Irish Act goes.

Does he mean to go back to the English Act?

No; only so far as the money is concerned which is paid. That is all that is done in the Irish Act. That is one of the accidents of legislation. We are getting no more and no less than the Irish get under the Irish Act. Now, passing from the amount, I come next to the distribution, and no doubt whenever any person has sums of money to distribute he is put into a position of some difficulty, not from any lack of claimants, but from their excessive number, and the object, of course, which is always to be kept in view is really to select what one may call the preferential claimants before relief can be given; but I think honourable Members will agree that there is one consideration which, in allocating benefits, will always be paramount, and that is to carry out any obligations which have already been entered into. There are such preliminary obligations to a certain class of people in this case. I am not speaking of extra-Parliamentary obligations, and I daresay that honourable Members know perfectly well to what I am referring, because it has been mentioned during this Session on this Bill. In the Act of two years ago, passed for the relief of the agricultural rates in Scotland, it was expected that on the ratio of eleven-eightieths of the English grant—the calculation of the Scotch Office had to be made upon that basis—the amount derived, which would be available for Scotland, would be £187,000. Of this, £180,000 was to go to the relief of the agricultural rates—that is, the occupiers' rates under the Act of two years ago, with which, no doubt, honourable Members are familiar. As a matter of fact, instead of £187,000 becoming available, only £160,000 was produced on the basis of the eleven-eightieths of the English grant—that is to say, the estimate upon which we proceeded at that time, based on the English amount of money, was over-estimated, and, in fact, £160,000 was the net result, instead of £180,000. The result of that was that, whereas, under the provisions of the Bill, the rating authorities were entitled to be relieved by some 12s. 6d. in the £, there has only been money enough to pay them 11s, Under those circumstances, I can scarcely doubt that the Committee will agree with me that this is a matter of obligation rather than of anything else, and that the first claim upon this money is to carry out what is neither more nor less than a Parliamentary contract with the rating authorities, and to supply this deficiency of money, so as to put them in the same situation as the effect of the calculation of 1896 would have done originally, if it had been correct. Honourable Members will find that the first distribution is—

"to pay £20,000 among the county councils and parish councils in Scotland, in addition to the amount they receive under the principal Act."

Now, passing from that, we have to come to the question of how the residue of the money is to be expended. For a long time there has been a growing sense in the country of the inadequacy of the Imperial contribution to the local authorities towards the pay and clothing of the police. Honourable Members will remember that the history of the Imperial subvention to the police force has been this: during the years up to 1889 the first subvention hat was given was first about a quarter and then a half of the expense of the police; up to 1889 it was put upon the Vote, and the last year that the money appeared upon the Vote was in 1888–89, when the expenditure for the police in Scotland was £308,067, and the grant from the Imperial Exchequer was £154,034, which, as honourable Members will see, was about half. Now it will be remembered that the local taxation account was started under the Act of 1888, and those who were in the House at the time will remember also that, so far as 1888 was concerned, there were temporary arrangements in that Act. The Local Government Act, 1889, stereotyped that the sum of £155,000 should be the contribution which was to be made by the Imperial Treasury to the police force. That was, in round figures, what had been the amount upon the Vote in the year before. Since that time the expenditure on the police has steadily and continuously increased. The figures in 1889 were £308,000. I need not read the whole of the figures to the House, but the amount has been steadily rising in a gradual ratio, and in 1896–97 the expenditure was £369,849, with the result that what was in 1888–89 a relief of, practically, 10s. in the £ is in 1896–97 a relief of only 8s. 5d. That matter does not quite stop with the mere statement of those figures, although the figures speak for themselves; but there is a particular grievance which is associated with this grant, and that is this: as a matter of fact, we may congratulate ourselves that we have had no particular outbreaks of disorder in Scotland, and there has been no increase of the police in Scotland, except that which is necessary owing to the increase of the population which has gone on, and which is an index of the prosperity of the country; but the result is, the increase of the police has taken place mostly in the large cities and mining districts, where the population has increased very rapidly. The effect is very hard upon what may be called the poorer counties, because the counties which have had no increase of police have, nevertheless, got less of the grant which they formerly received from the Imperial Exchequer. Accordingly, it would appear that a very proper use to which to put some of this money would be to more or less restore what I may look upon as the ideal equilibrium of 1888–89, so that we may get back to the original idea of Imperial subvention to the extent of one-half. We do not propose to go the whole length of £30,000, which would be one-half. We only propose in this case to give £25,000 for the purpose of the subvention of the police force. Those are two heads of distribution of the money. Now I come to the third, upon which, in this Committee, I need say very few words. For years there has been a request that something should be done in the fishery interests, and honourable Members know perfectly well that over and over again there have been complaints that sufficient money has not been given to the policing of the sea-coasts of Scotland. Honourable Members may be aware that this policing of the fisheries districts in England fell upon the local rates, and that seems quite a proper expenditure to charge on what I may rightly look upon as Scotch money. We have got from the Treasury recently a contribution in the shape of the price of two extra vessels which are proposed to be used for the policing of the Scotch fisheries, and for the purposes of that it is intended to allocate a sum of £15,000 a year. That will not interfere with the fisheries Vote generally. In point of fact, the only item which will come off that Vote is maintenance, and anything else, for one cruiser. Now that leaves a balance to be distributed of £35,000, and we propose to devote that balance of £35,000 to the furtherance of secondary and technical education, including agricultural education. I would remind the Committee how the present sums available for secondary and technical education, including agricultural education, are paid in Scotland. I am speaking of Imperial sources now, because such local contributions as there are have nothing to do with this point. Under the Education and Local Taxation Act of 1892 there is fixed sum available of £60,660. That as honourable Members will remember was taken out of the estate duty, formerly he probate duty. There is a certain proportion out of the Customs and Excise duties, under the provisions of the Local taxation and Excise Act of 1890. I night point out that under the provisions if that Act there is a fixed payment to police subvention, and to relieve school fees of children up to the compulsory standard, and sanitary officers, and then a fluctuating payment to pleuro-pneumonia account, and then a balance which goes to the counties and burghs in relief of the county and burgh rates, or to secondary and technical education, at he option of the county or burgh. Now, all those who are interested, or who have any particular cognisance of the working of the secondary education of Scotland, will know that one of the great disadvantages that the education authorities have had to cope with has been the uncertainty of the amount with which they had to deal. There are two causes which lead to the uncertainty: one, the option as between education and rates, and the other the far more difficult one with which to deal, of the fluctuating demands of the pleuro-pneumonia account. Honourable Members may not be aware that the basis of the pleuro-pneumonia account was this: provisions were made by the Board of Agriculture for stamping out pleuro-pneumonia to which Ireland has made no contribution at all, but to which England and Scotland contributed out of the local taxation account, the amount paid by Scotland being twelve hundredths of the amount spent year by year. The payments for the pleuro-pneumonia account have increased year by year. In 1894–95 they were £108,000, and in 1896–97 £144,000, with, of course the corresponding effect upon the balances available for technical and secondary education. And although counties and burghs have acted very fairly upon the whole, education had found itself indubitably crippled by these accounts and the uncertainty of the money. We wish now, so far as we can, to remedy that, and we propose to remedy it not only by giving this £35,000 under the Bill—a very substantial contribution—but we also propose to incorporate in the Bill a small reform. We propose to transfer the charge of the pleuro-pneumonia account, on the balance provided under the Customs and Excise Act of 1890, from that account, and impose it on the balance of the education and local taxation account. Now, observe, these two balances are paid to exactly the same authority. They are both paid to the counties and burghs, but the purposes are rather different. Under the Education and Local Taxation Acts of 1892 the balance is distributed to the counties and burghs—half according to valuation and half according to population, to be used for a statutory purpose or scheme of public utility or in relief of rates. But, as a fact, nearly all the money has gone in relief of rates. Consequently, by this we shall transfer the risk of pleuro-pneumonia to the relief of the rates rather than education. Therefore, whatever we do under the Act, we shall indubitably free secondary education from that account, and it will be no more affected by the pleuro-pneumonia account. Then, as to the amount of money taken, in 1896–97 the sum actually available was £48,073. To that must be added the sum set free by the pleuro-pneumonia account being transferred elsewhere, and to that you have to add the fixed sum of £60,000, which I previously mentioned. So that in the future the sums available for the purposes of secondary education will be £60,000, £48,000, £14,000, displaced from the pleuro-pneumonia account, and the £35,000 which we give under the Bill.

The £48,000 and the £14,000 would, as I understand, still be subject to the option of the local authorities as to whether it should be used for rates or education.

That is so; we cannot help that. But my right honourable Friend will remember that, speaking in the rough, the money has mostly been devoted to technical education. I think I can give him what he wants to know. Taking the 1894–95 accounts, first of all, out of the pleuro-pneumonia account, there was £39,295, which was available under the option, and the amount actually spent was £35,214.

For the purpose of secondary education.

Yes; and in 1895–96 the sum available was £39,262, and the amount expended was £34,291. Speaking generally, I think I was fairly right in what I said. Of course, I do not want to make any mistake. My right honourable Friend, of course, remembers it has nothing to do with the amount spent in relief of the rates under the other balance—the balance to which we are now putting the pleuro-pneumonia. Take the year 1896–97, the total amount available was £189,183. I have not got the figures as to what was spent, but I take it that most of it was spent in relief of rates. I think I have shown that where the burghs and county councils have fairly acted up to what my right honourable Friend would consider their duty, and really given these sums to education, and if that is so, surely they will be much more inclined to do so if you set before them what this Bill does set before them—a good chance of having proper secondary education. Because I think we may fairly hope to give this large increase of money, and take away the fluctuating quantity which has so much crippled education, and the effect of that will be to give an incentive to secondary and technical education, and will be the means of getting the local authorities to devote to that purpose all the moneys they can afford. Honourable Members will remember at the present moment there are representative committees, and I think the result of those committees will be to strengthen the position. So far as agricultural education is concerned, there has, up to the present, only been £2,000 a year devoted to that by a somewhat indirect and inadequate method, and that goes to the support of four establishments. Under this scheme we hope that sum will be increased. The particular way in which these sums will be distributed will be in such a manner and according to such conditions as are set forth by the Scotch Education Department. The object of the Department will be to consolidate effort, and to get the thing into central hands. This Bill makes such adequate provision to those centres as will greatly improve the cause of secondary and technical education in Scotland. Those are the provisions, which I hope I have explained with sufficient clearness, but the subject is rather technical. To summarise what I have already said, the sum of money is given in precisely the same way as that given upon the Agricultural Rating Act. The estimated amount to come to Scotland is £95,000, and we expend that, £20,000 by making good the deficiency which already exists under the old Act, £25,000 in aid of the police, £15,000 in aid of the fisheries interest, and £35,000 in aid of technical and agricultural education.

The right honourable Gentleman, has explained to the House, with all his usual clearness, the very intricate position of affairs, and I am sure that the intricacy of it must have so struck the honourable Members who are at present in the House—there are not many—that they would not be altogether surprised, considering the importance of this Resolution, and the subsequent legislation that will follow upon it, if I rise mainly for the purpose of suggesting that this Debate should be adjourned in order that Scottish Members and the Scottish people should have an opportunity of thoroughly realising and comprehending what is set before them. I would say this, upon the whole position we have suffered for the last 10 or 12 years beyond what could have been conceived before to have been possible from these complicated accounts. Sometimes we proceed upon a fixed proportion by which Scotland gets 11–80ths of something else. At another time the system is followed of finding out what the real wants of the country are, and endeavouring to find a means of relieving those wants. Sometimes we are led to entertain a certain suspicion that whenever a method would entail the least cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which, therefore, gave the least advantage to our country, that was the one which was adopted. It is natural that we should have that suspicion, although I have no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman will explain that there is no justification whatever for it. In England we give the sum upon a certain Vote. We give a certain sum to Scotland in relief of agricultural rates upon that fixed proportion. Then we turn to Ireland and give it upon the merits of the question, and now we come back to Scotland, to redress the injustice which she is supposed to have suffered; but I do not know that we have improved our position in the three countries. Because, if I am not wrong, the relief that England receives is only given for five years, and the relief now advocated for Scotland is only given for five years, but in the case of Ireland it is given for ever and aye. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is hardly a redressing of the balance between the three countries. That is a subject upon which so much has been said and which has been so much before this House, that I need not dwell upon it to-night. Now, the right honourable Gentleman has stated how he proposes to deal with this £95,000 a year, and he has enumerated certain objects to which the Government intend to devote it. I at once say that some of those objects have our entire sympathy, and we have upon various occasions always protested, in the name of Scotch opinion, so far as we are entitled to represent it, against sums of money of that kind being dangled before us and thrown to the mere relief of the rates instead of being bestowed upon some definite useful purpose, such as the Scottish people have at heart. Now, the first object to which the right honourable Gentleman referred was to make up the deficiency in the previous relief given to rates whereby certain parishes have not received the relief which was intended all parishes should receive. At last we have heard that the Act operates unequally, and one fact to which the right honourable Gentleman attributes this unfortunate state of things whereby the intention of Parliament was not carried out, is that to some extent the Bill happened to be passed in a hurry at the end of the Session, and therefore the calculations were not so accurate as they might have been. Now, I would venture to urge that as a warning and as a reason why we should not be too hasty in passing matters of this kind which are now before us, if a little further consideration might enable us to avoid such a mistake as that. I am sure that when we come to deal with the matter after a little consideration of it we shall be inclined to ask that the whole question should be held over for a few months, which will be no loss to anyone, but will give us that great advantage of knowing what the people of Scotland would wish to be done with this large sum of money; so far as that sum is required to make good the promise which was made a year or two ago, I confess there is a case for it. Then I come to the large sum of £25,000 which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to give in aid of the cost of the police, and he says he gives that because that expenditure of the police has gradually but steadily increased in late years. But does he not see the expense of the police has increased precisely in proportion as these subsidies have increased, and that it is since this system of large subsidies has been so freely introduced extravagance has followed in the administration, so far as the police services are concerned, and, therefore, it comes to us for a still greater grant every day. That is the objection I have always had to grants in aid, because I think they are opposed to economical administration. I will not say anything in respect to the fisheries policy, but pass on to the larger question of technical education. I congratulate the right honourable Gentleman upon his proposal, not only to give this considerable sum of £35,000 for this purpose, but also upon his further proposal to make the sum at present available under the previous Act a more fixed sum and take away from the pleuro-pneumonia grant. That is one of the effects of the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman which I look upon with great favour, and I could only hope that more of this money went in that direction, but perhaps we may yet coax and induce the right honourable Gentleman in some way to alter his figures in that respect. I began by proposing that the Debate might be adjourned, and therefore will say no more upon the merits of the course which I and my honourable Friends may be disposed to take regarding this matter. This, I am quite aware, is only a preliminary Committee, and I am further aware from what the right honourable Gentleman has said that we shall not be fully acquainted with all these proposals until we see the Bill, and we cannot see the Bill until we have passed this Resolution in Committee. At the same time we have had experience of cases in which when we came to discuss a Bill of this nature we found we were sorely hampered by the fact that we had previously agreed to the Resolution. It is with this fear before us that I now venture to move that the Debate may now be adjourned.

I do not rise to oppose the adjournment which the right honourable Gentleman has moved, because I understand there is a general desire that that should be agreed to, but I must take some exception, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the observations with which the right honourable Gentleman has coupled it. He suggests that even in this Resolution we are not dealing fairly by Scotland.

No; what I said was, that when we find this tendency to Change from one system of calculation to another, year after year, we naturally imagine that there must be a reason for it.

We have proposed to change one system of calculation for another because it was distinctly to the advantage of Scotland, and therefore I think such observations as those of the right honourable Gentleman are unfair to the Exchequer. What is the position? No exception was made in 1896 to the proposal that certain grants should be made from the Exchequer in relief of English agricultural rates, and that corresponding sums in the proportions of 80, 11, 9, should be granted to Scotland and Ireland. No exception was made by Scotland to that proposition, but exception was taken in Ireland, and the result is that in order to introduce an entirely new system of local government in Ireland, we have agreed, after further consideration, to deal with the matter in Ireland upon the same basis as in England, and provide half the rate of agricultural land from the Exchequer. Therefore there is a reason for similar treatment being given to Scotland; but Scotland does not demand that she should be treated in that way. Scotland does not demand that half the agricultural rates shall be paid by the Exchequer. The right honourable Gentleman would not support such a proposition as that, nor do I believe would it be supported by any Scotchman here. Looking at it from a purely logical point of view—as we are bound to look at all Scotch matters—I cannot see upon what grounds Scotland can claim to be treated as if she wished to have half the agricultural rate paid out of the Exchequer when she does not desire it. She wants the money, but she wants to apply it to some other purpose, and when my right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate, acting in a spirit of the utmost generosity, proposes that instead of half the agricultural rate being paid by the Exchequer, Scotland shall have the same amount of money devoted to other purposes, which are, so far as I can gather, not at all objected to; the right honourable Gentleman will not allow the Resolution to proceed, which must be the foundation of the Bill, because he says they may possibly desire to apply it to some other purpose. Indeed, he has suggested that Scotland might take the money and apply it to no purpose at all. I always interfere with Scotch matters with the utmost timidity, but I interfered in this matter because, if the Scotch representatives are not willing to take the money for the purpose for which it has been given to the other two countries, and are not able to decide for what purposes it should be used, and yet want the money, it does seem to me to be a very doubtful proposition whether the money should be given from the Exchequer at all.

I cannot understand by what logic the right honourable Gentleman has arrived at his last conclusion. I cannot see the logic of his last observation. As I understand we are to have this money because we are entitled to it.

For certain purposes.

This is one of two alternative methods of doing justice to Scotland as compared with England and Ireland. Whether it does her justice I leave to the English Members to consider. It is not Scotland or Ireland which is being treated unfairly, but England by this lopsided arrangement. But granted that Scotland is entitled to something equivalent, how does that form an objection to my right honourable Friend's proposal. Speaking, as he does, for all the Scotch Members on this side of the House, his demand is that this question shall be postponed for further consideration. Why? Because, if we allow the Resolution to be passed, we should be hampered when we discussed the Bill.

I do not agree with you.

I only wish to make it clear that we make that demand lest we find our hands are tied by passing this Resolution.

I might remind the Committee that it is only a matter of progress.

desired to know whether any portion of the money allocated to the fisheries could be used for the purposes of the harbours?

pointed out that the Bill was so framed that he was afraid it could not.

I think we have much reason to think that the Government have allowed this Bill to be hung up for upwards of two months; and now, in the expiring weeks of the Session, apparently they are determined to force the Bill through the House. In the face of the strong, the large, and the growing-body of opinion, and especially of professional opinion, against this Bill, I am surprised that the Attorney General is showing so little respect to the opposition which has been offered to this Bill. I do not refer to the opposition in this House, but to the well-known opposition among the judges and among leading members of the Bar. If the House will bear with me, I propose to give some reasons why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. In the first place, I say that the principle of this Bill has never been adequately considered. It is true that a clause authorising the defendant to give evidence has been introduced into a certain number of Bills, but if these Bills are examined it will be found that in by far the majority of the cases the proceedings under those Acts, though in name criminal, are in substance and in fact rather civil than criminal. We have, I think, a remarkable instance of that in the Employers and Workmen Act. Under the 4th, 5th, and 6th sections, I think, of that Act, a prisoner, a defendant, may give evidence, but he may not give evidence under the 7th, and the distinction seems to me clearly that which I have pointed out, that in the first case the proceedings are rather civil than criminal. My object is to show that the principle of this Bill has not been adequately considered. If that is so, then, I submit, the proper and usual course would be to refer it to a Select Committee, in order that evidence might be given, and that the principles of the Bill might be further considered. It is not my intention to pursue the argument, or to give any other illustration, but there is one Act upon which reliance has been placed, and I refer to it, Mr. Speaker, because I think it will supply me with one of the best reasons which I could give in support of the Motion, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I refer to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Really, that is substantially the only Act under which we have any experience of the operation of the principle which is brought forward in the Bill now before the House. The learned Attorney General relies upon that Act as a precedent, and, apparently, the learned Attorney General is of opinion that our experience of the principle in that Act would be favourable. I need hardly point out to the learned Attorney General that professional opinion is hopelessly divided as to the effect of the Act. There are some who say, like the learned Attorney General, that the effect of the Act has been very favourable, and that it should encourage us to extend the principle; but there are others, with equally wide experience, who say that the experience of that Act in its working has not been favourable, and that it is not a reason why we should go further, but that it supplies us with an excellent reason why we should go back. Now, Sir, if that is so, if professional opinion is hopelessly divided as to the effect of this Act, then, I submit, this is precisely a case which ought to be inquired into by a Select Committee. It is only by a Select Committee of this House that evidence can be taken. I think it is very desirable that judges and others should have an opportunity of telling the country what their experience of this particular Act has been. We know that there are several judges who have expressed an unfavourable opinion of the principle of this Bill, and I think, therefore, that an opportunity should be given to them to appear before the Select Committee and state what their experience has been in carrying out that Act. Then, when evidence pro and con has been given, it will be for the Select Committee to inform this House as to the conclusion at which they have arrived. Then, Sir, another reason which I think I shall be fully in order in stating as a ground upon which this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is that the Government themselves apparently have not made up their minds with regard to the essential principles. It is the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Bill in 1896 upon this subject imposed restrictions upon cross-examination. The Attorney General himself last year introduced a Bill which imposed no restrictions upon cross-examination, and now the learned Gentleman has reverted to the policy of restriction. Now, Mr. Speaker, my point is that whether or not the prisoner is to be subject to the ordinary kind of cross-examination goes to the very root of the Bill; it is the very crux of the question, and although we are told that the profession is so largely of one mind upon this question, yet the fact is that the very men who support the principle of the Bill, as it is said, are hopelessly divided as to whether or not the defendant shall be subjected to ordinary cross-examination. The Lord Chief Justice of England had said that it is impossible to provide a means by which the defendant shall be protected from precisely the same kind of cross-examination to which the ordinary wit is exposed, and, I think, in these circumstances further inquiry is necessary. It would, it seems to me, be most unfair to restrict the cross-examination of the defendant if you allow him to be a witness at all, and for this reason—

Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is arguing the merits of the Bill.

Very good, Mr. Speaker; I feel that I am in somewhat of a difficulty, but the ground is somewhat narrow, and, of course, I do not wish again to contravene order. I must, therefore, simply content myself with expressing a hope that the learned Attorney General will accord some respect to the growing opposition against this Bill, and will very carefully consider whether, in face of the opposition, the Bill ought not to be further considered, as I suggest, by a Select Committee. In further support of that contention I may point out those opposed to the Bill have recently received into their ranks a very distinguished recruit. In former Debates upon this question, the great name—in such a connection—of Sir Henry Hawkins has been quoted in support of the Bill. Well, we know now that Sir Henry Hawkins is opposed. I do think that the circumstances are changed, and that the learned Attorney General himself must admit that the defection of so distinguished a criminal judge as Sir Henry Hawkins is a matter which ought to give him, at all events, some food for reflection with regard to the conviction which he has affirmed in connection with this matter. In these circumstances I do trust that the learned Attorney General will not attempt to force through this Bill at a period of the Session when it cannot possibly be adequately discussed—involving as it does a change, which, whether we agree or object to it, is certainly one of a very serious and momentous character—and that the learned Attorney General will agree that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

I really am very surprised that the Attorney General has not risen to make any answer to the appeal made by the honourable Gentleman. I think the Attorney General does not consider the extreme importance of the question of the Committee to which this Bill is to be referred—whether it should be a Committee of the whole House, or a Select Committee. It is not the first time the Attorney General has treated this question with something like what I might call contempt. Last year he introduced a Bill in a few words, and said it was not to apply to Ireland, because the Irishmen did not like it. A question as to a tribunal is to be committed, and on that question the Attorney General has not a word to say. I had hoped he would have risen and, in a few convincing words, have shown that the honourable Gentleman opposite was entirely wrong. Had he given those few convincing words, I should have saved myself the great difficulty of rising as a layman to discuss this question. Now, Sir, I have another complaint to make, and that is that the First Lord of the Treasury told us—I think it was not later than Friday last—that this Bill would be considered on Wednesday. Why has he put it down on Monday? I think it almost amounts to a breach of faith—a very serious breach of faith. Of course, it is a Bill that cannot be discussed without the assistance of legal friends, and those who take the same view. The effect is this: that the Government, having told us that the Bill would be put down for Wednesday, all the lawyers who have very serious and important engagements in the country, to which they must adhere—even the Attorney General has important engagements—the learned men, the lawyers, who are able to discuss this question in all its merits, and the committees to which it should be referred, are not here. They made their arrangements to be here on the day fixed for the Bill. I say Wednesday having been fixed for the Bill, to put this stage down for Monday really amounts:—I am sure it was not intentional—but really it amounts to something like a breach of faith. Our complaint on this is very serious. I look on the benches here, and I find they are entirely destitute of those legal gentlemen. I see many laymen, but I do not see many great leaders in this question—yes, I see one of them. I do not see many of those upon whom I had relied to have convinced the House that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and not considered by the whole House. I trust the Attorney General will recognise that we discuss this question under most serious disadvantage, and that he will consequently make allowances for us, and especially me, a poor humble layman, not knowing one word of the law from another, but not uninformed as to the principles of the law. I say, under these circumstances, amounting almost to a breach of faith—under these circumstances, I think we may claim the special indulgence of the House. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to allow this Debate to be adjourned, at any rate, until Wednesday, for which date everybody is prepared. But we are not prepared for it to-day. We did not expect in the least that this question would be taken to-day. We saw, of course, that it was put down for to-day, as it has been put down time after time in a merely formal manner, perhaps for the twentieth time this Session, and probably for the twelfth time since the question was seriously raised, and therefore none of us, and myself, certainly, had the least anticipation that this Bill would come on. When I saw that the Bill was down as a fourth order I should have been prepared to go happily home to dinner, except for a lurking and lingering suspicion of the Front Benches, which always remains in the minds of an experienced Member of this House. Under these circumstances, I think we are entitled to special indulgence in discussing the serious question of the Committee to which this Bill should go. Why, Sir, the question can be divided into several heads. In the first place, the Bill would naturally go to a Committee of the whole House, and I confess that that is the tribunal to which I should naturally wish to send it. My belief is that, under the conditions I am about to describe, the larger tribunal should be chosen for dealing with a Bill which proposes, as this Bill does, a tremendous revolution in the law of this country, a revolution which for a thousand years never entered the minds even of the most distinguished law officers who ever sat upon these benches. I say that when a tremendous change of that kind is proposed, I do think it is not a Select Committee, but a Committee of the whole House, which should deal with the matter with the proper information at its command. Now, Sir, what is the proper information? Surely in a matter of this kind the House should not dare to proceed with so momentous and tremendous a change without obtaining the fullest information from experts in matters of practice, as the judges of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench. As to Chancery judges and Chancery barristers, they know nothing about it—not so much as an ordinary layman, and certainly not so much as a man who has been tried for his life for a criminal offence. Therefore I attach no importance whatever to the opinions of either Chancery barristers or Chancery judges, but the opinions of Her Majesty's judges of the Court of Queen's Bench are essential in this matter; and I say that when the House of Commons is asked to make this tremendous revolution in the law of England it is entitled to say that it will not proceed a single step in the matter without being fully informed by those who have the largest experience, namely, the judges of the Queen's Bench; and there are others, such as recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions, who might also be called upon to give serious and solemn evidence in the matter. But as to the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, you ought not to go one inch without having their opinion. Now, Sir, I come to the next point. What is the proper way of obtaining the opinions of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench? It is to call them to the Bar of this House and ask them at that Bar for their opinion of the change proposed in the law. Were their opinions given in that way we should be in a better position than a Select Committee upstairs, whose decision is subject to review afterwards by this House, and, as the Members are well aware, the House has constantly reversed their decisions. Consequently, the proper place, it seems to me, in which this Bill should be considered is in full Committee of the whole House; and the proper way of obtaining the opinion of the judges is, as I have said, to call them to that Bar, and have their opinion given to the whole House. Now, Sir, this is no new proposal. I hear an honourable Member below the Gangway, probably a junior Member, who has recently entered this House, laugh; but, Sir, if that honourable Member had taken the trouble that I have in referring to endless precedents, especially in old times, with reference to matters of this kind, and as to obtaining the opinion of the judges, he would not have laughed, I think. It is no new thing. Again and again Her Majesty's judges have been called to that Bar. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I explain that the mode of calling the judges there and taking their opinion is a peculiar one. When a Peer is requested to appear at the Bar to give evidence it is directed that a chair shall be placed for him, and that he may sit down covered; when the judges are called it is directed that a chair shall be placed, and the judge there- upon stands behind the chair and rests his hand upon, it.

Order, order! The honourable Member is going beyond the subject of Debate.

Yes, Sir; I was merely giving an illustration which I thought arose out of the matter. Well, Sir, my belief is that the proper way of taking the opinion of the judges is that they should be called to the Bar of this House, and that they should be called separately, and should give their opinions out of their experiences to the full Committee of the whole House.

Order, order! The honourable Member is aware that the Motion is that the Bill shall go before a Select Committee, from which it would have to come back to a Committee of the whole House, and his argument as to what should be done in Committee of the whole House is surely not relevant to the question whether the Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee.

I did not understand that the Bill having been referred to a Select Committee would be referred back to a Committee of the whole House; but if that is so, and if the judges can then be examined—

The honourable Member misunderstands me. I am expressing no opinion as to whether the judges can be called, or as to what can be done in Committee of the whole House.

Quite so, Sir; I wish to argue that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, in order that the judges should be called, as has been done in old times. But if the judges are not to be called before a Committee of the whole House, then I think the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and a Select Committee would require to call before it not merely the judges but recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions, and other competent persons able to deal with this question. I am not going in the least into the details or merits of the Bill, and I should not be in order in doing so; but I am in order in saying that, be it for good or for evil, this Bill does propose a most unexpected and tremendous change in the law of the land, and I would leave no stone unturned to get the opinions upon this Bill from all those who are in such a position as makes them competent to deal with the merits of the change here proposed. But, Sir, a Select Committee would not have the power to get them. There might, however, be another way of taking the opinions of the judges, recorders, and chairmen of quarter sessions; that is to say, they might give their written opinions. In one way or another I do trust the House will insist that the opinion of those experts shall be given before we proceed further with this Bill; and as the question seems to be solely between the two Committees, the Committee of the whole House and a Select Committee, then unhesitatingly I say the Bill should go to that Committee before which it will be competent to hear the evidence of the judges, and of other persons, if need be. I know not what the fate of this Bill will be. I think I know its origin. It has, I think, been forced on the Lower Chamber and an unwilling Cabinet, and I say we shall incur in this House the greatest responsibility if we make a change of this sort without exhausting all the means in our power for getting the opinions of all those who are competent to tell us what the effect of the proposed change will be. Opinions, I know, vary. Some think it good and some bad; but the only persons who have a right to speak, and who are in a position to be capable of pronouncing on a vexed question of this sort, are those who have had actual experience in the administration of the criminal law to which this Bill will apply. Sir, I cannot imagine why Her Majesty's Government should resist this Motion. They cannot wish to have an imperfect Measure passed through this House, which probably would require Amendments the next year or the year after. They must have the same wish that we have. If it could be really shown that there is a balance of testimony that the change is likely to be good, then I think there would be no resistance to it; but if not, if the balance of opinion is against it, surely Her Majesty' Government would be willing to abandon the Bill. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government really and seriously intend to resist the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but I trust, if that be so, they will give some strong argument, which can be understood by a humble layman like myself, for not allowing the Bill to go to a Select Committee, so that the evidence of the judges and others competent to deal with the matter might be taken.

I must apologise to the House for not having been present earlier, but I confess that I did not expect that the Motion was coming on now, and it has taken me by surprise.

May I explain? There is really some misunderstanding. There is no intention of taking the Bill to-night, but only the Motion to refer it to a Select Committee, and what my right honourable Friend stated the other day was that the Committee stage would be taken on Wednesday.

I am not complaining of that—

I must point out to the right honourable Gentleman that he spoke upon the Motion when it was last before the House, and that therefore he is not entitled to speak again.

I do not think the statement just made by the Attorney General really meets our complaint that the Bill was not to be taken until Wednesday. The answer of the Attorney General is that the Committee stage is not to be taken until Wednesday, but that this Motion is to be taken to-night. Now, our view is that the discussion at this stage really raises most important questions. Sir, since this question was first raised I have endeavoured to keep an open mind upon it. I have read a great deal, both on the one side and the other, and I have heard a great deal both on one side and the other, and I am candid enough to say that I think there is a great deal to be said for the Bill, and a great deal to be said against it. But, on the whole, I must say, my mind being still open, that there is more to be said against the Bill than for it. But that is not really my point now. My point has been raised by my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn, and whether this change is a desirable change or an undesirable one, undoubtedly it is a great change—I think I may say a revolutionary change. Up to this time, during centuries of administration of the law in this country, we have gone upon the principle that it is not the business of the prisoner to prove his innocence, but it is the business of the court to prove his guilt. I hope I shall keep well within the rules of order, and I am not arguing the merits of the Bill, but I am simply arguing the question of the particular method which it is necessary to adopt in order that this Bill may be properly and adequately discussed. But I will argue in favour of a Select Committee, because I hold that this Bill is of such a character that it requires the full investigation which a Select Committee can alone give to it. I do not think that anybody will deny, I do not think the learned Attorney General will deny, that this Bill will make an enormous, a revolutionary change in the whole of the legal procedure of this country. Well, when I heard a Bill of this kind proposed by such a man as the Attorney General, I asked myself whether he is a Radical and I am Conservative, or whether I am Conservative and he is a Radical; because nothing, it appears to me, can be more revolutionary and more Radical than that a great change of this kind should have been proposed, and should be forced through the House without the fullest investigation. The point we are discussing to-night is whether the Bill is to be discussed in Committee of the whole House or by a Select Committee. Now here is the difference between the two. When a Bill is discussed in Committed of the House as a whole, it is discussed with the conditional precedent that its principle has been accepted by the House, or, at least, by an overwhelming majority of the sense of the House. If, however, a Bill is referred to a Select Committee, it means that the question is so important, that the change is so great, that opinion is so divided upon it, that it is necessary that the House should be armed with all the expert evidence that can be obtained upon the subject. Now, Sir the latter course is the course of which I am in favour, and of which I think the House ought to be in favour. I know very well that there are a great many, lawyers, a great many judges, strongly, in favour of this change, but I know equally well that there are a great many lawyers and a great many judges very strongly opposed to the change. Well, Sir, I think we are entitled to ask that the matter shall receive full investigation, and I do not think this is an unreasonable demand, when a revolutionary, change is proposed by a Conservative Government. For all these reasons I cannot quite understand why the Attorney General opposes this proposal. He must know that the Bill has not been adequately discussed. He must know that the opinion against the Bill is largely increasing and largely gaining in force every day. Does the learned Attorney General think it right to force a great change of this kind down the throats of the House of Commons by a majority? No, Sir, I do not think it is a wise course, and I do not think it is a fair course, and I appeal to both sides of the House to join us in preventing the Government from forcing rapidly through the House a most revolutionary Measure.

I do not propose to speak at any length at the present stage, but I wish to say most distinctly that I regret very much that the honourable Member for King's Lynn has thought it necessary to charge the First Lord of the Treasury and myself with a breach of faith. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on Wednesday, but it was never contemplated, I venture to say, speaking for the majority of this House, that this preliminary Motion would not be taken to-day. The Motion must be disposed of either to-day or to-morrow. This Bill has not been kept hanging up without any intention of proceeding with it. The principle of the Bill has been recognised over and over again, There have been full discussions in regard to it, and the House has, by a very large majority, recognised the principle. To suggest that there shall be an inquiry before a Select Committee is simply to suggest that the House of Commons is unable to make up its mind on this very important question. The honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has said that there is a growing opinion against the Bill. My experience is exactly the contrary. Although suggestions have been made respecting its details, there is no growing opinion against a change of the law. Upon the question of whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee or not, my answer, on behalf of the Government, is that we consider that the House of Commons is perfectly competent to deal with this matter. We have in this House Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, Recorders, and others who are well acquainted with criminal law, and the House has on many occasions affirmed and re-affirmed the principle of this Bill. I therefore trust that the House will allow this stage to be taken. We proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill on Wednesday.

I entirely agree with the honurable Member who says that the Government have been guilty of a breach of faith in proceeding with the consideration of the Bill tonight. When the Leader of the House says that a certain Bill will not be taken until a certain day, the House always understands him to speak of all the stages of that Bill. If this is not a stage, what are we talking about? I repeat, without fear of contradiction, that when a Minister declares that a Bill will not be taken until a certain day the House assumes that it will have nothing to do with the Bill until that day.

Perhaps the honourable Member will allow me to point out that what I said was that the Committee stage would be taken on Wednesday; but this is not the Committee stage.

I accept the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman, and I must say that, though opposed to him in politics, I have never known a Leader of this House more faithful to his engagements. But I must take exception to the statement of the learned Attorney General. What did he say? He said that the whole House was qualified, and fully qualified, to deal with this Bill. He said that we have in this House Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, Recorders, and legal experts. Yes, but we have not Her Majesty's judges, and I want to draw the attention of the Attorney General to this point particularly. When the Second Reading of this Bill was being discussed I rose, I think, twice in the course of the Debate, but the discussion was absolutely monopolised by lawyers. I do not quarrel at that; but we ignorant laymen, who were not permitted to take any part in the discussion, listened to it with great interest; and what did we find? We found throughout the whole of the discussion lawyers getting up—chairmen of quarter sessions and men of large experience—and contradicting each other all along the line, both on questions of principle and questions of fact. Now, Sir, I say that that description of the Debate, which no one can contradict who listened to it, is an absolute justification for the appointment of a Select Committee. But how are we poor laymen to arrive at a conclusion on this matter? We may be very negligable quantities in the mind of the learned Attorney General, but we form the majority of the House, and must decide this question; and when we hear experts one after another throughout a long Debate contradicting each other on questions of fact and on questions of principle, how are we to arrive at any decision on this question, which everybody admits is of the most vital importance? Sir, I desire to place before the House the humble opinion of a man whose experience was gained by being a prisoner in the dock, and not by being the prosecuting counsel, or the judge, or the recorder; and speaking in the position of a prisoner who has been tried, not for his life, but for his liberty, I most strongly protest against this Bill. I say, Sir, that the men who are tried have no voice in this House, and the men whose liberty is really at stake under this Bill are not adequately represented in the House at all; and I say that from that point of view, in my humble judgment, this is a cruel Bill. I am not going to enter into the details of the Bill, but I say that the House of Commons ought not, without sufficient information, to make this great change in the law. I say that from the point of view of the layman, and from the point of view of the prisoner, this is a great invasion of the rights which the law of England has been so jealous to guard throughout many generations, and, indeed, many centuries. Now, Sir, I listened throughout the Debate on the Second Reading to the statements as to the opinions of the judges, and we were informed—and this is one of the strong points on which I rely for the claim to have this matter referred to a Select Committee—we were informed that the great majority of Her Majesty's judges were in favour of this Bill, and names were mentioned. We have seen since that Debate declarations from some of the judges who were quoted as supporting the Bill that they had arrived at the conclusion that the Bill ought not to be passed. I say, therefore, that the laymen in this House are entitled to know, before they give their votes, whether in Committee of the House, or on the Third Reading of the Bill, what is the present division of opinion amongst those who are the judges of the land, and county court judges and recorders, as to the effect of this Bill. This Bill has been described, and I think truly described, as a Bill for the manufacture of perjury—

Order, order! The honourable Member is really trenching on the merits of the Bill.

The last sentence may be, but I would respectfully submit, Sir, that I am seeking to show the great difficulty we laymen have in making up our minds in view of the extraordinary conflict of opinion which we were all witnesses to in the expert discussion of the Bill on the Second Reading, and I do consider that in view of that extraordinary conflict the lay Members of the House are entitled to some further enlightenment and to some opportunity of investigating and satisfying their minds as to what is the actual state of skilled opinion in reference to this extraordinary and revo- lutionary change in the law which we are asked, as it were, blindfold, to give our assent to.

I wish at once to dissociate myself from those who have charged the First Lord of the Treasury with any breach of faith, or those who attack the Lord Chancellor for inflicting upon an unwilling Cabinet this particular Measure. But, having had some 17 years' experience in prosecuting for the Crown, I think I may be able to offer to the House some reason why this Measure should be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, during the last vacation it was my privilege to visit one of our Colonies where this law is in operation, and I had the pleasure of a long interview with the Chief Justice of Victoria, and he charged me, whenever this Measure came before this House, that he should like it to be known that the opinion of the majority of the judges in the land where this change of the law had taken place, was distinctly against it. Every year the judges of Victoria have to report upon the cases which have been tried before them, and particularly upon any reform of the law. The judges have, year after year, reported that they are against the present position of the law in Victoria, which is what this House is now asked to make law in this country. Now, the Chief Justice of Victoria is a distinguished lawyer, a member of Trinity College, Dublin, and before his elevation to the Bench, he was one of the most brilliant advocates in Victoria. There is not, as far as I can understand—and I had the opportunity of meeting all the judges there—there is not, I say, a single judge who is in favour of the law as it now stands. The honourable Member who has just spoken—I hope I shall not be out of order in following him on that particular point—made use of an expression the judges themselves have used. They have called the attention of the Parliament of Victoria to the constantly-increasing number of cases of perjury which have been brought about by this change of the law. Mr. Speaker, this surely is an argument why this Bill should go to a Select Committee. Let us hear the opinion of Her Majesty's judges, and I am confident that, at all events, if there is not a majority against this proposal, there will be found to be a large and consistent minority of the judges of the land against the proposed change. What happens in our Colonies will most certainly happen in our own country. Under the proposed system, one criminal cleverer than another will manage by deliberate perjury to escape his doom; but the unfortunate prisoner, who is innocent of the charge brought against him, and who has a record against him, will be afraid to go into the box—

Order, order! The honourable Member is discussing the merits of the Bill.

What I want to urge upon Her Majesty's Government is, that surely it is a question whether consideration should be shown to a minority which, at all events, is composed of experts. Her Majesty's Government must know that this is not a pressing Measure, it has been before the House year after year, and there is certainly no very great feeling outside the House in favour of this change of the law. As far as honourable Members on this side of the House are concerned, they have been led away by the eloquence of the Attorney General, and of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth. I am sorry my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth is not in his place to-night, because I think he would admit that there are younger Members of the Bar who do not share his views, and who, at all events, at the present time, have greater experience of criminal matters, than the honourable and learned Member himself. Of course, if. the House considers that the only reason that the Crown prosecutes is to secure the conviction of the prisoner, by all means do not send this to a Select Committee, but pass it without further discussion. But if, on the other hand, the Members of this House who are not members of the profession to which I have the honour to belong, wish to be guided before they give their vote, surely they cannot be better guided than by having the opinion of Her Majesty's judges, and of those honourable Members of this House who outside occupy the position—the important position—of chairmen of quarter sessions and of recorders. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if those opinions are brought before the House we, at all events, shall bow to the verdict of the majority. This we do say, that it is an extraordinary and a gigantic change of the law, and one which is revolutionising our own views of right and justice. It is in the interests of justice, and not in the interests of party, that I shall certainly record my vote in favour of this Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

I rise to support the Motion. The Attorney General denies that there is a constant increase of opposition to the principle of the Bill amongst the legal profession and the judges to this Measure, but he admits that there is a growing difference of opinion on many details of the Measure. That, I venture to think, is rather a reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, and not for proceeding with the consideration of the details of the Measure in Committee of the whole House. Of course, a Select Committee would not merely take evidence on the principle of the Bill, and as to whether individual judges were in favour of the principle of the Bill or were opposed, to it, but they would also consider what safeguards were necessary for a prisoner in the opinion of those judges who are in favour of the principle of the Bill. Now, we know that even among those judges who are in favour of the principle of the Bill there are a large number who are opposed to many details of the present Measure. I would refer especially, if I may, to the case of Lord Ludlow. Lord Ludlow is, of course, a Member of the Upper House, and has the right to express his opinion there on the details of the Bill; but, according to a letter which appeared in the Times, he was unable to do so, owing to the fact that the Committee stage in the House of Lords was taken at a time when it was not expected to be reached. Of course, it would not be right for me to enter in any way upon the proceedings of the other House, but I mention the fact to show that there were learned judges of great experience—and there is no judge who has sat on the Bench who has had greater experience in these matters than Lord Ludlow—who are Members of the other House of Parliament, and who were, nevertheless, unable to give the benefit of their experience to the House in considering the Measure. Now, I venture to think that Parliament, as a whole, ought to have the benefit of that experience before settling the details of the Bill. For that reason I venture to contend that it would be only right, even if there be a majority of the House—as undoubtedly there is—in favour of the principle of the Measure, that the House should have the benefit of expert opinion upon the details of the Measure before coming to a conclusion. Of course, the learned Attorney General says that there are a large number of Members in this House who have had great experience in criminal prosecutions. That, undoubtedly, is so. But does he say that in Committee of the whole House this House is likely to be guided by the opinion of those Members? If he says so, I venture to think it is contrary to all our experience of what happens in Committee. A Committee of the whole House on these questions, which are of the greatest importance for the liberty, and even the lives, of Her Majesty's subjects, will be guided, not in accordance with expert evidence, but by the votes of men who have not even listened to expert opinion. I venture to think that, on a question of this kind, where there is, as it cannot be denied, and as the learned Attorney General does not attempt to deny, a great difference of opinion on the details of the Measure in the legal profession, among the judges, and among all those who have a right to have an opinion on the expert side of the question, that there is a need for expert guidance, not merely on the principle but also on the details of the Bill. Of course, there is a vast distinction between a Select Committee considering a Bill and a Select Committee considering the abstract question of whether or not prisoners are to be allowed to give evidence. It would, perhaps, not be in accordance with the practice of this blouse, after so large a majority has decided that prisoners ought to be allowed to give evidence, to call for a Select Com- mittee to consider the abstract question. But that is not what this Motion asks; this Motion simply asks that a Select Committee should give the House the benefit of its advice upon the details of a particular Measure which has been brought before the House, and I venture to think that that is a reasonable proposal, and one which ought to meet with the acceptance of the Government. Of course, in a Sitting such as this the Government can pass any Measure which they like, and there is no doubt that on the few occasions the business of the House takes the full time it is expected to take there will be no difficulty in passing the Measure through. The Select Committee need not, perhaps, take a long time in its deliberations. The witnesses whom it would call before it need not be very numerous; they would almost, I should think, be entirely confined to one class of witness—the judges, either of the superior courts or chairmen of quarter sessions. But it would not interfere with the passing of this Bill during the present Session, if, after hearing the opinions, it was still the wish of the majority of the House that the Bill should be passed into law. But I venture to think that there is a strong case in favour of giving this detailed consideration to the Measure, and that it can only be given after inquiry by a Select Committee; and for that reason I venture to support the Motion before the House.

I cannot help Chinking that the best thing the House can do is to proceed to consider the Bill in Committee of the whole House. The opinions of many eminent lawyers have been heard on both sides, irrespective of Party, and the conclusion is that they are irreconcilably opposed one to another. And if the judges' opinions were heard before a Select Committee the same conclusion would, of course, be arrived at. Ultimately, therefore, the House will have to assume the responsibility of making up its mind on the main principle of the Bill. It is idle to be told that lawyers differ on this subject. They differ on every subject, as people connected with trades differ. I quite agree that this is one of the most difficult and anxious questions that can engage the attention of the country, but ultimately the responsibility will rest upon us. I do not believe myself for a moment that anything we hear from the judges will help a single Member of this House in making up his mind as to the main principle of the Measure. As to the details, the learned judges have views of their own, and there are more experts on matters of law in this House than on any other matter. We legislate for all sorts of trades and manufactures, with very few experts to guide us; and though it may be a very terrible thing for us to assume responsibility of this sort in this particular Measure, assume it some day or other we shall have to do. As to the talk about the increase of perjury, that is against argument, against allowing interested parties to give evidence. Nobody will deny that interested parties are far more likely to commit perjury than the people who have no interest either one side or the other. But the evidence has been admitted, and undoubtedly perjury has been enormously increased in consequence. But the point I desire to put before the House is this: We shall ultimately have to decide this question for ourselves. We know that differences of opinion do unfortunately exist on this subject, and we must reconcile ourselves to those differences of opinion by the knowledge that they exist on other subjects.

I hope the Government will yet see their way to send this Bill to a Select Committee. My reason is that, although great responsibilities, both in principle and detail, are thrust upon this House, and although we have any amount of opinion, and expert opinion, upon both sides, yet I do not think that we have anything like evidence; and I do not think that we can sift or test that opinion unless we refer the Bill to a Select Committee, with power of taking evidence on oath, and testing that evidence by cross-examination, and finally putting before us the net result of the evidence submitted and tested by questions upon both sides. I think this is a matter of extreme importance, and when the expert evidence upon both sides has been so tested and submitted to cross-examination we shall have some sure foundation upon which we can legislate, and failing which, we cannot discharge our responsibilities rightly.

I quite agree with the honourable Member that this House will have to decide upon its own responsibility whether this Bill will pass, and in what form. All we who are in favour of this proposal contend is that the House ought not to come to a conclusion, one way or another, upon this question with an uninformed mind, ought not to decide so important and vital a matter on the mere recommendation of the law officer of the Crown or his nominees. I think that the honourable and learned Member for Fife is right in saying that the inquiries of a Select Committee would probably bring out the fact that official opinion, and even judicial opinion, is divided upon this Bill. I think that is very likely indeed. But I do not regard that as a reason for not obtaining those opinions and having before us the Report of that Committee, because if that Committee should find and report that professional opinion was hopelessly divided on the question, and that the experts of the legal profession could not agree upon it, that, I conceive, would be a very strong reason for withdrawing this Bill, and not passing it into law. Before so great a change as this Bill proposes is made I conceive we should have practically a unanimous opinion, and it is because it has been alleged to us that opinion has been practically unanimous that in past years this House has consented to read this Bill a second time after a comparatively meagre discussion. The Attorney General himself, in recommending the Bill to the House, did not suggest that there was anything in the circumstances of the present day which made the Bill urgent, or called for its being passed into law. The only ground upon which he recommended it was that he conceived that in an occasional case or two this Bill would probably secure the liberation of innocent persons who, in the present state of the law, are convicted, owing to the fact of their not being able to offer their own evidence. Well, if the result of the Select Committee's investigation was to assure the House that, having regard to such inquiries as that Committee could make, the opinions of those best competent to advise the House were hopelessly divided as to whether it would or would not have the effect desired, this House would be very wise indeed in coming to the conclusion that the very large and revolutionary change proposed had not been justified by those who recommended it to the House. I can see that a Select Committee on this Bill would have three functions to perform. It would, in the first place, have to decide whether, on a matter of principle, any such change in the law as the Bill proposes was or was not desirable. I admit that the House has read the Bill a second time, and therefore it may be taken to have confirmed its principle. However, nothing is commoner in our Parliamentary experience than to permit the Second Reading of a Measure to be taken provisionally for the purpose of having that Measure sent to a Select Committee, by which inquiry is made as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with further. My own view is that the House would have been wise not to read the Bill a second time at all, or before it did so to have appointed a committee for the purpose of inquiry. I think that would have been a wise and proper course to take; but the House has read the Bill a second time, but I do not consider there is anything in the conclusion to which the House has come on that matter that debars us from directing the Committee to inquire whether on principle it is desirable to proceed with the Bill. Reference has been made to the fact that on the Second Reading the opinion of experts in the House was hopelessly divided. That is one of the reasons which might induce us to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as that Committee might reassure us upon this point, and inform us as to what expert opinion in this matter is. I consider, Sir, that what the Committee would really have to do would be to decide, not whether the Bill ought to pass at all, but whether if it passes it should not be limited to certain classes of offences. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the Second Reading of the Bill this question was argued as though there were only two conclusions to which the House could arrive—the conclusion, on the one hand, that the prisoner should be examined in all criminal cases, and the conclusion, on the other hand, that he should be examined in no criminal case. My own view of that question is this, that the truth does not lie in either extreme. I am myself in favour of having a prisoner examined—

Order, order! The honourable Member is directing attention to the provisions of the Bill. The question before the House is, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Sir, I am endeavouring to show to the House one of the reasons why I consider it would be wise for the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and the reason is that the Select Committee might well inquire whether the Bill should be universal in its provisions or should set aside a special class of offences, and say that it is the proper thing to have a prisoner examined in that particular class of case, but not that there should be a general enactment that the prisoner should be examined in all cases. I confess it appears to me to be the most important function which a Committee can perform. Unquestionably there is a large body of opinion—expert opinion—judicial opinion, professional opinion—in favour of having the prisoner examined, and the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth referred, when speaking on the Second Reading, to several cases where he conceived that if it had been possible for the prisoner to be examined the result would have been different. Now, it appears to me that what the Committee would have to do would be to consider whether it was wise and desirable that in this special class of case there should be an examination of the prisoner. In cases of offences against females—