two works complete, the Delta will be ensured against all risk of disaster from a too low Nile.

This million will open up a whole series of navigation canals with locks complete to take the produce of the field to the market. It will increase the sugar-cane cultivation of Gizeh. It will rescue and improve the neglected Fayoum. It will complete the Ibrahimieh Canal of Upper Egypt, and render that work a blessing to the country which was designed solely for the advantage of the late Khedive. Lastly, it will enable drainage to be taken up along with irrigation works-a most necessary thing in Egypt.

It will take some years to carry out this programme. Surely ere then the wise men of Europe will have determined what is to be done with Egypt? Surely ere then the unfortunate Alexandrians will have had their long-promised indemnities paid? Surely ere then there will be a strong Government established, bringing with it public security and confidence? And the coffers of Europe will again be emptied out on the land, and will be employed in developing its marvellous resources, as a few years ago they were wasted in carrying out the caprices of a tyrant.

The burden of Egypt! It seems to rest on many English hearts and heads as of old on the Hebrew prophet. To many it seems to be little better than the scroll written within and without with lamenta

tion and mourning and woe. But the small company of English officials who are trying to serve their country at Cairo have no such dark misgivings, and those among them who, like the irrigation inspectors, have come from India, marvel that England should stand paralysed in action before this little land after all that she has done from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin. The smallest province of

India requires as much ruling as this Nile valley.

I say with pride that we have done some good work these last two years in Egypt, but it must be remembered that we have done evil too. But for England Alexandria would never have been burned, and many an honest fellah whose bones are beneath the sands of Tel-el-Kebir would have been tilling his acres to-day. But for England's garrison in Egypt Hicks' force would never have been sent to perish miserably in far Kordofan.

And can it be that England, which never refuses to listen to a tale of distress from Bulgaria to Patagonia; England, which is now cheerfully spending millions to relieve her hero at Khartoum-can it be that she refuses, not her money, but only her credit, to relieve these poor Egyptians of a cruel debt, for which they are no more responsible than are the peasants of England? Ah, the burden of Egypt falls heavily on us Englishmen in Cairo, who can only hang our heads and listen in shame as the foreigners around us laugh at a Cabinet without a policy, which wastes precious months over a Con

ference, more precious months over the visit of a high functionary like Lord Northbrook, and throws over the one as it throws over the other, enamoured of its own clever device of eating its pudding and yet keeping its pudding, exercising a paramount influence in Egypt and yet not even pledging its word that Egypt shall fulfil her engagements.

But I am wandering far from my humble theme, which is r gation.

Mr. Dicey can discourse of politics far better than I can, and what England should do in Egypt he has told the readers of this Review in pretty plain language before now,

Cairo, December 27th, 1884.

C. C. SCOTT-MONCRIEFF.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

PRIVATE Bill legislation is a subject which affects, and very closely affects, the comfort and the wellbeing of the great mass of people in these islands. When it is considered that no railway can be constructed or extended, that no tramway can be laid, that no community can be supplied with drinking water or with gas, that no shipping town can be furnished with harbour or dock accommodation, that no canals can be cut, and no system of sewerage can be carried out-not to particularise a multitude of other methods of a similar character-without the intervention of Parliament through the machinery of Private Bill Legislation-when these facts are considered I think I may be acquitted of exaggerating the importance of the subject if I say that it ought to be, if it is not, a matter of universal interest.

I do not intend to enter into the technicalities of the question in this paper. These may be relegated to the Law Journal or the Treatise on Parliamentary Practice. My endeavour rather is to enlist the attention of my readers in the general nature of this important subject, and to convince them, if I can, of the necessity for some reform in the present system. I propose also to explain the provisions of a Bill dealing with the matter which is now before Parliament, and which I hope may supply at least the basis of any reform which may ultimately be carried out.

A Private Bill has been defined to be a Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, and the distinction between a Public and a Private Bill is, that whereas the former deals with matters of public policy in which the whole community is interested, the latter deals with matters of private interest only, whether that be the interest of an individual, or a public company or corporation, or of a parish, city, county, or other locality. This distinction in its broad lines is clear enough, though at times difficulties may arise in determining to which class particular Bills properly belong. Into these difficulties it is unnecessary to enter here. The main distinction that Public Bills deal with matters of public policy, and Private Bills with matters of individual interest, is enough for my present purpose. Neither is it necessary to dwell upon the distinction which exists as to the preliminary formalities through which a Private Bill has to pass before it comes into one or

other of the Houses of Parliament. These formalities belong to the region of technicalities, and, as there is no intention in the Bill which is before Parliament to interfere with them to any great extent, it is unnecessary to burden these pages by referring to them. It is to the treatment of the two classes of Bills after the preliminaries are completed, and when they have respectively been introduced into Parliament, that I wish to direct attention.

In passing Public Bills, Parliament acts strictly in its legislative capacity. In passing Private Bills, Parliament acts in its legislative capacity, but its action in this capacity is for the most part formal. The real and effective proceedings in the handling of Private Bills by Parliament partake more of the judicial than of the legislative character.

Parliament, or rather the Select Committees to which Parliament delegates its functions, in passing a Private Bill acts as a Court of Justice, and as such it inquires into and adjudicates upon the interests of private parties. The promoters and opponents of a Bill act as plaintiff and defendant in a Court of Justice. They are represented by counsel and agents, and the case for the promoters and opponents respectively is stated, and evidence is brought to establish or refute it before the Select Committee who sit as judges and adjudicate upon the question submitted to them. The proceedings connected with the conduct of a Public Bill are not of a judicial character. In passing a Public Bill through its various stages the Legislature acts, as it ought to act, in a legislative capacity alone. In passing a Private Bill through its various stages the legislative acts are, for the most part, mere formalities. At times, no doubt, Parliament asserts its authority in these legislative acts. Now and again, when public feeling or party passion is aroused, Parliament rises in its might and throws out a Private Bill on the second reading, or occasionally on the third reading. But such an exercise of legislative authority is exceptional. As a general rule the legislative stages are formal. The real work is done by the Select Committee acting the part of judges.

In the following pages it is important to bear well in mind the distinction between these two functions of Parliament. This distinction is the hinge of the question, and without having it clearly before the mind it will be difficult to follow the proposals of reform which are to be submitted. In order to accentuate this distinction let us follow the course of a Private Bill through its stages after it has been presented to Parliament.

The ordinary public are aware that certain apparently routine business is transacted each day in the House of Commons immediately after the Speaker has taken the chair. There is an empty House, because the majority of members find the gossip of the Lobby or the excitement of the ballot for places in the Ladies' Gallery more attractive than the details of Bills affecting individuals or localities in which

neither they nor their constituencies have any interest. There is a mumbling conversation at the table between the Speaker, the senior clerk, and a nervous member or two rising from a wilderness of vacant benches. The newspaper reporters pay no attention to the proceedings; they have no interest for their readers. The public in the galleries are bewildered or indifferent, and for the most part impatient for the real work of the evening to commence. They do not comprehend what is going on, but they are given to understand that they are looking at the High Court of Parliament transacting the business of Private Bill legislation. Every Private Bill has technically to pass through precisely the same legislative stages as a Public Bill. It must be presented and pass its first reading; it must be read a second time, committed, reported, read a third time, and passed. And the unexciting proceedings which the bewildered stranger gazes down upon during 'private business' are the different legislative stages through which the Bill has to pass. The real business connected with these Bills is, as has been said, the judicial business, and that business is transacted, not in the House of Commons, nor in the House of Lords, but upstairs in the committee-rooms of the two Houses.

If any one will follow a Private Bill from its forlorn and inglorious birth and childhood in a listless or empty House of Commons to its manhood and maturity in the bustling and heated atmosphere of the committee-room, he will be amazed to know that the Bill which he saw mumbled through its second reading in the most important of its legislative stages can be the cause of all the energy and excitement which are so lavishly expended on it when it reaches the judicial stage in the committee-room. The lobbies are crowded with eager, anxious men; the committee-room is filled with groups of interested and excited individuals, parties to the cause and their friends.

The Committee (I take a House of Commons case), consisting of a chairman and three members, are punctual in their places on the stroke of twelve. The chairman is generally, though not always, a man of experience in the House and on committees, and the burden of the work and of the responsibility falls upon him. His three colleagues are generally new to their duties, and unfamiliar with the forms and practice of the committee-room. To some members the work is congenial and acceptable. These are the select few who, if they are fortunate enough to retain their seats in a second or third Parliament, grow up into the chairmen of future committees in future Parliaments. But I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that for one man who finds the work congenial and agreeable, nineteen find it irksome and wearisome beyond belief. Just at first there may be a certain intellectual interest in hearing an intricate case cleverly presented by able counsel, and in exercising, however imperfectly, the functions of a judge. But three or four days continuously listening to the dry array of