Commons Sitting of 30 March 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WATERFORD INFIRMARY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

DIVORCE BILLS.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills do consist of Ten Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Sir Robert Finlay, Mr. Hemphill, Sir Frank Lock-wood, The Lord Advocate, Sir John Mowbray, Sir Robert Reid, and Mr. Wodehouse—(Sir John Mowbray.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 1) BILL.
Read 2°, and committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL.
Read 2°, and committed.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
Copy ordered,
"Of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1895, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon." — (Mr. Ritchie.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.— [No. 130.]

RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Rule of the Road at Sea, in Session 1895, be referred to the Select Committee on the Rule of the Road at Sea. —(The Attorney-General.)
BURIALS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Wednesday, 1st April, till Tuesday, 21st April.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Friday, 17th April, till Friday, 24th April.
QUESTIONS.

  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.
  MR. HAROLD RECKITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a series of articles on the subject of Employers' Liability which have recently appeared in the Sun newspaper, and just issued in pamphlet form, wherein statements are made on the authority of the Board of Trade statistics, that the number of persons killed and injured in industrial accidents during the year 1895, were 4,533 and 27,197 respectively; and whether he will take steps at once to introduce the promised Employers' Liability Bill in order to diminish the risks?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have seen the pamphlet referred to in the Question, and the numbers given are, unhappily, substantially correct. I am unable at present to indicate the precise date when I can introduce the Employers' Liability Bill. I may, perhaps, add, so far as the important question of saving life is concerned, that I shall very shortly introduced a Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which is directly intended for this object.

  ARTILLERY AMMUNITION.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is true that the batteries of artillery armed with the new 12-pounder and 15-pounder guns are to be supplied for the annual practice this year with old-pattern 12-pounder ammunition instead of their proper ammunition?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Yes, Sir; the batteries will this year be supplied with old-pattern ammunition. There is a large store of old-pattern ammunition, and as the instruction gained with it at gun practice is for general purposes the same as from the use of new- pattern ammunition, it has been considered desirable not to waste entirely the existing store. The new ammunition cannot, moreover, be properly issued for practice until a reserve sufficient for all purposes has been accumulated.

  MILITIA OFFICERS.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the want of officers in the Militia, amounting to some 600 in the force at the present time; whether he is aware that, under a royal warrant, Line officers who elect to serve with Militia are allowed to do so for ten years on. pay and are then retired compulsorily; and whether, in view of the want of such officers in the Militia at the present time, he will consider the advisability of allowing them to continue serving in the Militia regiments so long as they are favourably reported upon by their commanding officers?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The number of Militia officers is nearly 600 below the establishment. The compulsory retirement referred to in the Question is from the Army, not the Militia. The officer's half-pay stops at the end of ten years after leaving the Regular forces, but there is nothing to prevent his continuance in the Militia. In any case, very few officers are affected, as only seven took advantage last year of this system of retirement from the Army.

  VACCINATION COMMISSION.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether Inquiries have been made by the Royal Commission on Vaccination into outbreaks of small-pox at Warrington, Leicester, and other places; (2) when the results of those Inquiries will be made public; and (3) what opportunity will be given to those who have taken local interest in the matter to represent any observations thereon to the Royal Commission before it presents its final Report?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have made inquiry, and am informed that it is the fact that Inquiries have been made by the Commission into outbreaks of small-pox at Warrington, Leicester, and other places. The Commission, however, cannot undertake to delay their final Report until after the publication of the results of these Inquiries.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply to the third paragraph of the Question?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In reply to that, I think it is a question which ought to be addressed to the Commission itself. I have no authority to interfere.

  CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what is the present number of Crimean veterans in receipt of a pension; and, whether he can state what number of such veterans, who are not in receipt of a pension, are supposed to be living at present?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): I assume that the Question is intended to apply to the Indian Mutiny campaigns as well as to the Russian wars. There are 2,020 such pensions now payable. We do not know accurately the total number of the men referred to; but, judging from the fact that more than 2,000 pensions have been claimed under the present restricted conditions, and that a very large number of soldiers left the Army after those campaigns with comparatively short service, it may be

  365
  regarded as certain that the number must be far in excess of the number of campaign pensions already granted, and it has been estimated to be 14,000 or 15,000.

  RAILWAY TELEGRAPH MESSENGER KILLED.
  MR. W. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Leicester on the 16th inst. upon the body of G. W. Lewin, at which it transpired that the deceased, though aged only 13 years, was regularly employed on 10 hours' night duty as goods telegraph messenger at the Midland Station, Leicester, and in the course of carrying messages amongst the goods trains was killed by the shunting of some trucks, and also to the opinion expressed by the coroner and the jury, that boys ought not to be engaged on such dangerous duty, either by night or by day; whether he can state how many boys are so employed upon the railways of the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that the Post Office has for some years discontinued employing boys on delivering telegrams after 8 p.m., and employs men instead; and, whether he will issue a circular to the Railway Companies advising them to follow the example of the Post Office?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I had ordered an inquiry into the case referred to before the hon. Member's Question appeared on the Paper. When the Report is received the Board of Trade will consider what course should be adopted. I have no information as to the number of boys employed on railways. The Midland inform me, however, that in future night duty shall not be performed by a youth less than 16 years of age.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  MR. J. A. GRETTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if all the five battleships of the Admiral class, now forming part of the Mediterranean Fleet, are still armed with the old 6-inch breach-loading guns; and, if he will consider the advisability of re-arming those so fitted (which may come under repair during the coming
  366
  financial year) with the new 6-inch quick-firing guns?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): One of these ships, the Collingwood, is now being rearmed with the new 6-inch quick-firing guns, and the others will be taken in hand as they come in for repair.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin Co. N. (Mr. J. J. CLANCY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it is a fact that it is more than two years since the usual initial steps were taken to have a number of labourers' cottages built in the Kells Union, and more than a year since the usual Local Government Board Inquiry was held into the scheme as formulated by the Board of Guardians; and (2) whether any of the cottages referred to have yet been built; and, if not, could he explain what is the cause of the delay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Guardians are not yet in a position to proceed with the erection of the cottages, as in some eight cases petitions have been lodged against the Local Government Board's Provisional Order of October last, and these objections must be adjudicated on by the Privy Council before the Order can be acted upon. The scheme is a large one, proposing the erection of 81 cottages at an estimated cost of a good many thousand pounds.

  SUNDAY GATHERINGS IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the propriety of framing a fresh regulation with respect to Sunday gatherings in Hyde Park, which, while not interfering with legitimate and bonâ fide public meetings for the discussion of public questions, will put a stop to the blasphemous utterances and the performances for personal profit that have been permitted in the park on Sunday afternoons for some time past?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir; I am considering with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works and with the Law Officers of the Crown the possibility of framing such a rule, but it is a matter which presents considerable difficulties.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this decision may be arrived at?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot say that. It will take some time, as the difficulties are very considerable.

  DOMINICA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will favourably consider the suggestion that a loan should be raised on an Imperial guarantee for the development of the resources of Dominica, and as the best available method of promptly relieving the Colony of its present embarrassments and removing the obstacles to its progress?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am considering in what way any Imperial assistance can best be given towards the development of the resources of Dominica while duly safeguarding the interests of the British taxpayer, but I am not as yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  CLERKS' LABOUR.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that last year an Inquiry was promised as to the conditions under which clerks labour in entering rooms and similar places in the City, with a view to the necessity for further legislation; and, whether he can state what has been the result of that Inquiry?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My predecessor, in the course of a reply to a deputation from the National Union of Clerks which he received in March of last year, promised to make certain inquiries, and the result of those inquiries was, I believe, that he satisfied himself that he could not deal with the subject in the Factories and Workshops Bill then before Parliament.

  SCHOOLMASTER DISMISSED.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Mr. Wilson from the post of schoolmaster of the Board School of Hemingford Green, on the ground, as stated by the Chairman of the Board, that the boys were very rude out of school; that when the clergyman entered the children did not show their discipline by standing up; and that, had it not been for the question of the religious instruction, he (the Chairman) would not have become a Member of the Board; although, according to the report of Her Majesty's Inspector, Mr. Wilson is a gentleman who has largely increased the efficiency of the school by careful, intelligent, and efficient teaching, and has maintained discipline at a point which is highly creditable to him; and, whether he intends to take any action in regard to this dismissal?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No communications have been addressed to the Committee of Council on this subject. Even if the facts are as stated in the Question, it is not a matter in which the Committee of Council have any power to intervene.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to the Resolutions passed by the Galway Grand Jury in favour of a line of railway between Ballyvaghan and Oranmore; and whether, in view of. the widespread feeling in Galway and Clare in favour of this project, the Government will take an early opportunity of making an announcement on the subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received copies of the Resolutions referred to. The case of the suggested line of railway will be considered in connection with other similar proposals. I can make no statement beyond this.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a very strong feeling amongst all classes in favour of this Scheme; and also whether he is prepared to receive a deputation on the subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think I could consent to receive a deputation on this subject, at all events before the Light Railways Bill is introduced.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation after the Light Railways Bill is introduced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider that.

  LIGHTHOUSE-KEEPERS.
  MR. E. B. BAILLIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Departmental Committee which is inquiring into the condition of English lighthouse-keepers embraces also the condition of lighthousekeepers in Scotland; and, if not, whether he will see his way to include them within the scope of these investigations?
  MR. RITCHIE: I think that the hon. Member must have misunderstood answers which I have given to previous Questions on this subject. There is no Committee inquiring into the condition of English light-keepers, as implied by the Question. A Committee is inquiring into the administration of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights informed the Board of Trade that they were not able to consider a Petition of Irish light-keepers until that Committee had made its Report.

  BRISTOL POST OFFICE.
  MR. LEWIS FRY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the fact that 40 messengers attached to the Telegraph Department of the Bristol Post Office will shortly be discharged on account of their having attained 16 years of age, and without having any other employment offered to them in the Postal Service; and whether, in view of the hardship which will be thus inflicted upon a number of young men who have satisfactorily fulfilled their duties as public servants, he will consider the propriety of withdrawing the notice of dismissal given to the messengers in question, or of modifying the Regulation under which they are to be discharged?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It is the fact that a number of telegraph messengers at Bristol who have attained the age of 16 are under notice to leave; but the number—excluding four who are being discharged for unsatisfactory conduct—is 25, and not 40, as stated by the hon. Member. The Regulation on the point has been laid down mainly in the interests of the lads themselves. If they remained on as telegraph messengers until the age of 18, the Department would be no more able to give them appointments then than it is now, and it will be obvious that, at the age of 16, lads are better able to learn a trade or prepare themselves for other employment than they are at the age of 18.

  COCKLING INDUSTRY (LANCASHIRE).
  MR. RICHARD CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has received a Petition from the fishermen of Flookburgh and district in Lancashire asking for an alteration in the regulations affecting the cockling industry; and, as the matter affects the livelihood of a number of persons, is he able to grant the prayer of the petitioners, or if he will order a public Inquiry to be made into the subject?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers, and it has been explained to the fishermen that these regulations can be altered only on the application of the Lancashire Sea Fisheries District Committee, by whom they were made, and who are, under statute, the body charged with the supervision of the fisheries of the district. I have not yet received any such application.

  LINEN AND JUTE INDUSTRIES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the possibility, in any amendment of the Factory Acts, of extending to the linen and jute industries legislation similar to that contained in part a of Sub-section 1 of Section 40 of the Act of 1895?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: As the Act now stands, piece-workers in these industries are supplied individually with particulars as to their rates of wages. If paragraph a were extended as proposed, the rates of wages would also have to be exhibited on a placard posted in the workroom. But I have received no complaints whatever on the subject, and, in the opinion of the Examiner of Particulars, the extension is unnecessary. In these circumstances I am not prepared to propose a further amendment of an enactment which was carefully settled by Parliament less than a year ago.
  *SIR C. DILKE: If the right hon. Gentleman receives a representation from the Scottish Mill and Factory Workers' Union, will he consider the question?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I would be happy to receive such a representation; but, if it is to deal with the amendment of the Factory Acts, I am afraid I cannot enter into that.

  FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND.)
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that Scotland has not received her proper share of the Fee Grant, in consequence of the proportions, due to Scotland and England respectively, having been calculated solely on the original Educational Estimates of each year, and without taking into account the Supplementary Estimates voted for England?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): It is the case that the Fee Grant paid to Scotland during the financial year now current, and the three preceding financial years, was based upon the original Estimates of each, and that the supplementary Estimates voted for England were not taken into account. Communications on the subject have been addressed by the Scotch Education Department to the Treasury.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of this Fee Grant should be apportioned to Scotland and Ireland not upon the amount of the original Estimate, but upon the amount actually paid?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that Question. The Question on the Paper only relates to Scotland.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the three Queen's Colleges in Ireland send up for the medical examinations of the Royal University at least three times as many candidates as does the Catholic University School of Medicine, will he explain why one-half of the total of Fellows and Examiners appointed by the Royal University are apportioned to the Catholic University; and, whether there is any clause in the Charter or Statutes of the Royal University giving this representation to the Catholic University at the expense of the Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The charter and statutes of the Royal University of Ireland empower the Senate to appoint or employ such examiners as may be necessary, and impose no restrictions as to the persons who may be so employed. I am informed by the secretaries to the University that it has been the usual practice ever since its foundation to appoint, as far as possible, one-half of its ordinary examiners from amongst the professors of the endowed or Queen's colleges, and the other half from the professors of unendowed colleges. This practice has been followed in the medical as well as in the arts faculty.

  CORDITE.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any cordite has been manufactured in India for use by the troops there?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): As yet no cordite has been made in India; but its manufacture is under consideration.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the manufacture of cordite, which is supplied under contract with

  373
  Messrs. Kynoch's works at Arklow, is sent to Birmingham upon completion?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Messrs. Kynoch hold two contracts—one for gun cordite, and one for cordite ammunition. The gun cordite is made throughout at Arklow, and on completion is delivered into Government stores at Purfleet. The cordite for the ammunition is brought over by Messrs. Kynoch from Arklow in the form of paste. It is finished at Birmingham, and the cartridges are made up and completed by them at the same place. They are then delivered to Woolwich.

  COOKERY LESSONS (BIRMINGHAM).
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he has become acquainted with the purport of statements lately published in Birmingham to the effect that a class of young girls, at the Waverley Road Board Schools, were made to dissect the bodies of rabbits; were these operations enjoined by the Government Inspector; if so, were they sanctioned by the Department as a necessary part of the education of girls; is the kind of teaching involved to be continued; and, will he see that the use of diagrams as illustrations shall be substituted for such experiments?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The dissection in question was performed by some 16 girls, not in an elementary school, but in the advanced course of the organised science school. Physiology is a compulsory subject in this course, and the regulations of the Science and Art Department require a practical acquaintance, by the use of a microscope, with the minute structure of the several tissues and organs. None of the girls were under 14, and nearly all were over 15. The Clerk to the Birmingham School Board says that the actual dissection was nothing more than any girl would necessarily perform in preparing a rabbit for stewing, and has probably been done without remark in most cookery kitchens.

  SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will
  374
  take into consideration the desirability of providing that the expense of the protection of our Sea Fisheries shall be defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer, and not from local sources derived from the counties and boroughs abutting on the sea?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): If it is necessary to employ one of Her Majesty's ships for the purpose of protecting the Sea Fisheries, the expense is of course defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer; but, where this is not necessary, I see no ground for altering the present law on the subject.

  H.M.S. NORTHAMPTON.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the cruiser Northampton, now about to start on a recruiting trip, is to call at Kirk-wall and Lerwick; and, if this has not been already arranged, whether he will include these seaports in the list of places which the Northampton is to visit?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: As at present advised the Northampton will not visit Kirkwall and Lerwick in the course of her present cruise.

  ST. JAMES'S NATIONAL SCHOOL, DEVONPORT.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is the case, as was recently stated at a public meeting at Devonport, that the Admiralty contributed £30 to the St. James's National School, Keyham, Devonport, during the year 1895; if so, whether there is an annual payment, and if he will state the grounds on which it is made?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes Sir, a sum of £30 was awarded by the Admiralty to St. James's Church School at Devonport in 1895. The grants to schools in dockyard towns fluctuate each year, and are not necessarily annual. They are made in order to assist schools which are

  375
  attended by the children of seamen and marines and dockyard employés, and are allotted independently of religious distinctions, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and other schools sharing with National schools in these awards.

  FIRING ON THE HIGHWAY (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a man named Patrick Keating, of Kylmoracy, county Tipperary, was recently charged at Carrick-on-Suir Petty Sessions, with firing, with intent to injure, a girl named Hannah Hickey, while she was standing at her own door, and that the evidence disclosed that Patrick Keating carried the gun along the public road although possessing no licence to carry arms; that, notwithstanding the fact that the Chairman stated that it was clear from the evidence the shot was fired with the intention of frightening the Hickeys, the District Inspector of Constabulary, who conducted the prosecution, informed the Magistrates that he would not ask them to return the defendant for trial, and that the Bench consequently refused informations; and, whether the Crown will take steps to have the defendant duly tried for the offence with which he was charged, and will also take proceedings against him for carrying arms without a licence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The substance of the charge against Keating is correctly stated in the Question. There was, however, no evidence adduced that he fired at the girl or at any other person. The complainant was unable to say that the gun was directed at her, and she refused, moreover, to swear that Keating fired at her. In the absence of such proof the Magistrate declined to send the case for trial, but, in view of the fact that it was proved the man had discharged his gun on the public road, they placed him under a rule of bail to keep the peace. The Crown, under the circumstances, do not propose to take any further steps as suggested. The question of instituting proceedings against the man for keeping a gun without a licence is now being considered. He is duly licensed to carry a revolver.

  AMERICAN MAILS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the Return recently issued showing the time respectively occupied in the carriage of the mails between New York and Queenstown, and between New York and Southampton, during the year 1895; and whether, in view of the marked superiority of the Queenstown route, the Postmaster General will represent to the postal authorities of the United States the advisability of forwarding the mails for Great Britain and Ireland viâ Queenstown?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has, of course, had before him the Return prepared in his Department for the information of the House showing the time respectively occupied in the carriage of the mails between Queenstown and New York and between Southampton and New York during the year 1895. The United States Post Office is thoroughly aware, from weekly returns furnished to it by the Postmaster General, how the service works by both routes, and, speaking generally, sends by the Queenstown route all letters, etc., for Ireland, as well, of course, as all letters, etc., for other parts of the United Kingdom, which are specially superscribed for the Queenstown route. Moreover, the Saturday mails from New York, containing letters, etc., for all parts of the United Kingdom, are regularly carried by the Cunard Company's steamers touching at Queenstown. On Wednesdays, when a subsidised American packet for Southampton and a British steamer for Liverpool via Queenstown are both starting from New York, and the disparity between the transit times is small, the United States Post Office give the preference to their own subsidised packet, and the Postmaster General can scarcely find fault with them for so doing.

  STEAM TRAWLING (GALWAY BAY).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the gunboat recently sent to Galway Bay to protect the fishermen from illegal steam trawling, has captured two steam trawlers

  377
  while engaged in this unlawful practice in prohibited waters; and whether, in view of the fact that this steam trawling places the lives of over 100 Galway fishermen in nightly peril, he will instruct the law officers of the Crown to prosecute the offenders?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that on the 21st instant two steam trawlers were seized by a gunboat whilst trawling within prescribed limits in Galway Bay. Proceedings were at once taken against the masters of the trawlers, with the result that they were fined £5 each and costs for the illegal fishing, and their nets were forfeited. I also learn that they were fined in the further sum of £25 each and costs for not burning lights on the night of seizure.

  LUNACY.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now communicated further with the Lunacy Commissioners, and if he is now prepared to make a further statement as to the causes of the recent great increase of lunacy and the operation of the 4s. grant, or to institute an Inquiry into the subject?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have had no direct communication recently with the Lunacy Commissioners on this subject, but I have suggested to the Lord Chancellor under whose jurisdiction they are, that, in view of the interest that is being taken in the question, it might be desirable to follow the precedent set by the Irish Government, and direct the Commissioners or some of them to make special inquiries as to the causes of the increase of lunacy, and embody their conclusions in the next annual report, or in a special Paper to be laid on the Table of the House.

  ST. MARY MAGDALENE'S SCHOOL. PADDINGTON.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department have allowed the managers of St. Mary Magdalene's School, Paddington, to amend their accounts for the year 1894–5 by including in them the special fund
  378
  raised for structural alterations; whether he is aware that, in consequence of that amendment of accounts, the sum of £94 18s. 7d., which had been deducted under Article 107 of the Code, has been refunded to the managers; and whether, under Article 90 of the Code, any outlay is permitted on the premises beyond the cost of ordinary repairs to appear in the school accounts?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The facts are as stated. The expenditure was allowed under Article 90, because it was found that the works done were "renewals" and not "alterations."

  EDUCATION GRANTS.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the Scotch Education Grant Act of 1892 contains precisely the same words relating to the fee grant as the Irish Act of the same year, and whether he can explain why, under these circumstances, the Treasury submitted to Parliament in 1893–4 and 1894–5 an estimate of a fixed amount for Ireland but of an increasing amount for Scotland; (2) whether he can explain why the Scotch grant was calculated with reference to the amount of the English Estimates and not with reference to the English grant, as prescribed by the Act; and (3) whether any application was received from the Scotch Education Department or from the Irish National Education Commissioners claiming that the grants for Scotland and Ireland respectively should be calculated with reference to the English grants and not the English Estimates; and, if so, when such application was received?
  *MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; the words are the same in the two Acts. The amounts submitted to Parliament in the years mentioned were those asked for by the Scotch and Irish Education Departments respectively. The point referred to in the last paragraph of the Question was first raised as regards Scotland in February 1895 and as regards Ireland in February 1896.
  MR. KNOX: Does the Treasury disclaim all responsibility for the framing of the Estimates referred to in the Question?
  *MR. HANBURY: Certainly. They are submitted by the Commissioners of Education.

  VAGRANCY.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a Petition of the Mansfield Board of Guardians, dated 26th June 1895, as to the increase of vagrancy, and the heavy burden imposed by certain unions thereby; and whether he will consider the advisability of an Inquiry into this subject, with a view to enforcing the principle that each locality should be responsible for its own poor?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have had under my attention the Memorial referred to, together with a letter received from the Mansfield Board of Guardians on the 21st of this month. There has, undoubtedly, been a considerable increase of vagrancy of late years, and the Board, in a circular letter which was issued by them last month, have stated their views as to the course which should be adopted by Boards of Guardians with regard to the relief of this class of poor, and have expressed their opinion that if the regulations which are now in force are enforced by Boards of Guardians generally throughout the country, the number of persons relieved as vagrants would be largely diminished. The Mansfield Board of Guardians, it appears, desire an Inquiry with a view to the relief of the casual poor being placed under a system of State control, so that the expense of such relief may be borne partially by Capitation or other grants by the State. I cannot direct an Inquiry for the purpose suggested.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if there is any truth in the statement that negotiations are in progress with the Portuguese Government for the purchase of Delagoa Bay by England?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I answered the Question at the last sitting of the House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The Question I wish to ask is, whether there have been any negotiations?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated that there is not an atom of foundation for the rumour.

  MILITIA AND VOLUNTEER SHOOTING.
  MR. A. MONEY-WIGRAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has considered the question and would be prepared to recommend the granting to the Militia and Volunteers the same scale of prizes in musketry as is awarded to the Regular Army under Paragraph 188, Chap. 7, "Musketry Instructions 1894"; or, if not, whether he would recommend the granting of the lower allowance to the Volunteers on the scale of prizes granted to the Militia under Paragraph 637, "Militia Regulations 1894"?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Lord Lansdowne is not disposed to make any addition to the present inducements to good shooting in the Volunteers, which he regards as sufficient. The conditions under which the Militia practice firing do not, in his opinion, justify the same scale of prizes as are given to the Regular Army.

  INDIAN ARMY.
  MR. HERBERT DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in reference to the alarming statements made in the Annual Report of the Sanitary Commissioner to the Government of India for 1894 as to the prevalence of venereal diseases in the Indian Army, and which statements are admitted to be true, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the evil?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The growth of venereal disease in the Indian Army, consequent upon the abolition of the previous protective measures against it—[cheers]—has been a source of great concern to the Government of India, who report that it prevails "to such an extent as to constitute a most serious cause of inefficiency in the Army." The Government of India are considering what instructions or regulations it may be possible for them to issue to mitigate this scourge and without infringing the restriction imposed upon them by the Resolution passed by this House upon this subject.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: Is there any possibility of those Resolutions being rescinded? [Cheers.]
  [No answer was returned.]

  REVENUE RETURN.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is willing to grant, for the years ended 31st March 1895 and 31st March 1896, a Return in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 314, being a Return showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March 1894—(1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the Balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure?
  *MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; the Government are willing to grant this Return.

  STREET PREACHING (SLIGO.)
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state on whom will fall the expense involved by the dispatch of a large force of constabulary, consisting of a district inspector, a head constable, nine sergeants, and fifty men, from head-quarters to Sligo, to aid the local authorities to cope with the situation caused by the open-air preaching held in that town; is he aware that the proper authorities have condemned this street preaching as an act of obstruction and calculated to provoke disorder and breaches of the peace, and that these preachers have been offered the use of large halls in the town, and of open spaces outside the town; and, whether, under these circumstances, the police authorities will take steps to so deal with cases of alleged obstruction as will tend to preserve peace and order in the town of Sligo?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: One officer, one head constable, nine sergeants and 40 men were sent from headquarters to Sligo in connection with the open-air preaching. A portion of the expense entailed in dispatching this force will be
  382
  charged to the Borough of Sligo. The local Magistrates and the Corporation of Sligo have condemned the preaching, as stated. The preachers have been offered the use of the Town Hall and also, I believe, an open space of ground for the purpose of holding their services, an offer which, in my opinion, they would be acting wisely in accepting. I think it would be equally wise if those having influence in the district would advise the people not to molest the preachers. The police have instructions to prevent, and have prevented, any obstruction being caused to the thoroughfares in Sligo by preaching in the streets. The rioting and disorder which have necessitated the presence of an extra force of police, have arisen from attacks made by the mob upon the preachers walking through the streets to and from the place of preaching.

  CARRIAGE OF MAILS (IRELAND).
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the new line of railway from Galway to Clifden has yet been utilised for the carriage of the mails; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when will an arrangement be come to on the matter?
  *MR. HANBURY: There are no trains running on the line at hours suitable for the night mail, but the Department is considering whether any advantage would accrue from using the Company's trains for the day mail. It is not clear that they afford any advantage over the existing road service.

  WARRANT OFFICERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the hardship of withholding long service medals from wan-ant officers, inasmuch as a non-commissioned officer of 18 years' service can apply for the medal, but a warrant officer of 17 years' service is not entitled to it although senior in rank?
  MR. POWELL - WILLIAMS: The medal is a testimony of good conduct as well as of long service; and upon the latter point I think I cannot do better than read to my hon. Friend the words

  383
  of a recent minute of the Adjutant-General, viz.:—
  "It would not be right, we think, to raise any question of rewarding a warrant officer for good conduct, because the fact of his holding the warrant raises him above the suspicion of bad conduct."

  CYCLISTS IN THE MALL.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will take into his consideration whether one of the four avenues in the Mall, on the north side of St. James' Park, might be reserved for cyclists within reasonable hours, one avenue being, under present arrangements, reserved for carriages, and the other three (two of which are wide) being open to pedestrians?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent,): I regret I can give my hon. Friend no other answer than the one I gave a few days since to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicestershire, namely, that the matter is receiving consideration.

  FLAX INDUSTRY (ULSTER).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (l) has he seen a statement made by Mr. William M'Cammond, of Cherryvale, Belfast, with regard to the handling of flax in Ulster, recommending improved methods which, if adopted, would greatly benefit growers; and (2) whether, seeing that in the past season large quantities of flax were sold at prices so low as 2s. 6d. per stone, he will recommend the appointment of a small Commission, or adopt such other means as he may deem best, to have the various methods of handling flax thoroughly investigated in the interests of the farmers of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not seen the statement referred to in the first paragraph, though I am informed that many competent authorities are of opinion that loss is incurred by Irish farmers owing to the manner in which flax is usually handled. I believe that a thorough investigation as to the relative merits of the systems adopted in Ireland and on the Continent for the
  384
  culture and treatment of flax would yield information of undoubted value to growers of flax in Ireland, and to enable the Government to further consider the matter the Land Commissioners have been authorised to confer generally with some of the chief cultivators and users of flax in the north of Ireland, to report to the Government thereon and, if necessary, to submit a scheme for the carrying out of such further investigations as may be considered desirable.

  ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he could state what has been the number of railway servants killed by accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned since August last, and in what number of such fatal accidents there have been inquiries held locally by inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board?
  MR. RITCHIE: Two hundred and thirty-two railway servants were killed by accidents of this class between August and the end of February. Of these, four were killed in train accidents. The inspecting officers held inquiries in these four cases, and of the remainder, 42 were inquired into by the sub-inspectors.

  RAILWAY SUB-INSPECTORS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Return of Railway Accidents for the year 1895 will contain the reports from the railway sub-inspectors as to inquiries carried out by them; or in what form, and in what Return, he proposes to lay the results of the work done by the sub-inspectors before Parliament?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Accident Return for 1895 has been presented, and does not contain the reports of the sub-inspectors. I propose, however, to give a summary of their work in the forthcoming General Report on Railway Accidents.

  KAFIRS IN CHITRAL.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any

  385
  arrangements have been made by the Indian Government to afford an asylum in our territories, or in those under our influence, for the Siah Posh Kafirs who have escaped from the Afghan invaders; will the nature of any such arrangement be indicated to Parliament; and whether His Highness the Ameer of Kabul has caused 16,000 of the Kafirs to be deported and distributed amongst the local authorities in Afghanistan?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As I stated on February 20, certain Kafirs have sought refuge in Chitral, where they and others who have joined them are being assisted and settled upon small grants of land by the Mehtar on condition that they observe the usual terms on which asylum is granted. I have no information that is in any sense reliable as to the number of Kafir prisoners or the treatment of them in Afghan territory, but judging from what we know of the total number of the population of Kafiristan, it is highly improbable that any such number of prisoners have been deported.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Is there no news since February, the date named by the noble Lord?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I stated that since February 20 we had received information as to further attacks having been made; but all the figures which have been published in connection with these attacks are supposed to be quite untrustworthy.

  SMALL-POX AT GLOUCESTER.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Report of the Commission on Vaccination will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether, considering the serious outbreak of the disease that has recently occurred at Gloucester, the Commission will be directed to include the circumstances and causes of this epidemic within the scope of their researches?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Commission, and I have been informed that it is impossible to name a day when the Commission's Report will be laid on the Table. The Commissioners have been for a long time engaged on its preparation, and they
  386
  hope it will not be long before it is presented. We have already sent Dr. Sidney Copeland to Gloucester to in-quire into and report upon the epidemic.

  EDUCATION (BACKWARD CHILDREN).
  MR. J. GUMMING MACDONA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf Dumb, etc., 1889, special classes have been formed by the School Boards of the United Kingdom for backward children who are unable to profit by the ordinary instruction of an elementary school; and, if not, whether the Education Department propose to take any action in the matter; in the event of such classes being formed, whether imbeciles would be admissible to them; and, what steps the Education Department would require to be. taken to insure none but proper children being admitted to such classes?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Special classes have been formed by some School Boards, notably by the London School Board. The whole matter is under the consideration of the Committee of Council, but they are not yet in a position to say if it would be feasible to introduce legislation on the subject. It would not be proposed to admit imbeciles to such classes.

  DONGOLA EXPEDITION.
  *MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the fact, as stated in a telegram from Cairo published in The Times newspaper of 27th March, that the Egyptian Government have informed the Sultan of Turkey that the object of the movement of Egyptian troops up the Nile from Wady Haifa is to recover provinces formerly held by Egypt in the Soudan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Her Majesty's Government understand that, the Sultan having requested the Khedive to express his views with regard to the advance of Egyptian troops in the Valley of the Nile, the Khedive, in reply, stated that the British and

  387
  Egyptian Governments have agreed that the movement is opportune for endeavouring to bring back Dongola, which is part of a province formerly held by Egypt in the Soudan, under Egyptian administration, and that an Expedition, accordingly, has been dispatched thither.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether the explanation given by the Khedive was not altogether a different explanation from that given by her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CURZON: No sir, the two explanations are precisely identical. [Laughter.]
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether it was not the fact that Her Majesty's Government stated as the reason for the expedition the necessity of repelling an attack on the Egpytian frontier?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is pursuing in an argumentative way the Question which has been answered.
  MR. J. M. PAULTON: With reference to the last answer, may I ask whether the House is to understand that the object of the present expedition is strictly limited to the re-conquest of the province of Dongola?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; the House is to understand what is the object of the expedition, in the eyes of the Government, from the various speeches which have been made by Ministers. [Laughter.]

  PRESIDENT KRUGER.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to President Kruger's reply to his Dispatch of 4th February, and the invitation to visit England?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I answered this Question on Friday, the 27th, and I have nothing further to add to that reply.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the statement contained in The Times of Friday last as to an offensive and defensive alliance between the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State was corroborated by any information which the right hon. Gentleman had received?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information confirming that statement.

  POTATO CROP (IRELAND).
  MR. P. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the spraying of potato crops in Ireland with strawsonite has resulted in preserving them from blight and of increasing the quantity of sound eatable potatoes by one-fourth of the yield more than where spraying has not been used; and, whether his attention has been drawn to the Blue-book of Agricultural Statistics (Ireland) just issued, which shows that where spraying has been used the most beneficial results were obtained; and, if so, will he advise the Government to take steps to make the application of the system universal during the coming season?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The results of the experiments conducted in 1895 by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission for the purpose of testing the value of strawsonite and other solutions as preventives of the spread of potato disease in Ireland are fully detailed in the Report recently presented to Parliament. These experiments, on the whole, were most successful and satisfactory in their results, and indicate that a timely application of the solutions is beneficial, not alone in prolonging the period of growth of the plant, but in lessening the ill-effects of the disease and increasing the relative yield of potatoes. I may remark that the experiments, which were originated in the year 1891 at the request of the Irish Government, have since been carried out from year to year, and the results attained, with other information, have been embodied in leaflets and very extensively circulated throughout Ireland amongst the farming classes and other interested persons. I now propose to ask the Land Commissioners to issue the recent Report to Poor Law Boards, agricultural societies, and other bodies interested in the matter, as well as to the Press, and also to continue the circulation of the leaflets.

  RECOVERY OF DEBTS.
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he has had his attention called to a resolution passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce on the 25th instant, in which they express

  389
  their opinion that it is desirable that Scotch and Irish debts should be re coverable in the English county courts, provided the debts have been contracted in England, by delivery to a railway company or goods agent, and that English debts similarly contracted in Scotland and Ireland should be recoverable in Scotland and Ireland in a reciprocal manner, and whether he will take steps to give effect to this resolution with the least possible delay?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): My attention had not been called to the resolution referred to by my hon. and learned Friend until his Question appeared upon the Paper. Legislation would be required to give effect to the suggestion. and I am not prepared, at any rate during the present Session, to embark upon the somewhat thorny questions which would be raised by any proposals of the kind.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC COMMISSION.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will now give the names of the Members of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Traffic, and state the terms of reference to the Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sorry again to repeat an answer I have given more than once. The list of names is very nearly completed, but it is not so far advanced as to enable me to make a statement to the House. If, however, my hon. Friend will repeat his Question on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-morrow, I hope to be able to give him some information. I hope to have some information to-morrow morning.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENgave notice that he would repeat the Question at the rising of the House to-night. Failing an answer he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  MUSEUMS (SUNDAY OPENING).
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make his promised statement as to the date upon which the South Kensington and Bethnal Green Museums will be
  390
  opened on Sunday, and also if he has any information from the Trustees of the British Museum and National Gallery as to when they propose to open the museums and galleries under their control on Sunday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government are prepared to open South Kensington and Bethnal Green at a very early date—indeed, almost immediately. Those are museums under the control of the President of the Council. The National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the British Museum are in the hands of trustees, and correspondence is still going on between the Government and the trustees, though I have no reason to believe that any difficulty need be apprehended as to the final conclusion of a satisfactory arrangement.

  MADAGASCAR.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked, as a question of which he had given private notice, whether the Government had reason to believe that France contemplated favouring her own trade in Madagascar at the expense of that of other Powers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider the possibility of friendly and joint action in the matter with the United States?
  MR. CURZON: The point is one of very great importance, but we have as yet received no information from the French Government of their intentions, and I am afraid, therefore, at the moment I cannot add anything to what I said on Friday night.
  *SIR C. DILKE: The attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to what purports to be a communicated note in reply to what he said on Friday night.
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, but no such communication has officially reached us.

  MATABELE RISING.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, asked whether any information had been received by the Colonial Office later than the telegram which appeared in the morning's newspapers with reference to the rising in Matabeleland?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; that was the last telegram received.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER, referring to a notice of Motion to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, asked whether it was to be understood that it was not intended to take any Votes after 12 o'clock, and, if that surmise was correct, whether the Leader of the House would reconsider his idea of asking the House to agree to-night to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right hon. Friend is perfectly right in his supposition. I do not propose taking any Votes in Supply tonight, but I think it is necessary for the general convenience of the House that Mr. Speaker should be got out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates tonight, otherwise we should not be able to begin on Thursday week with the discussion in Supply.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand that there is any financial urgency to make that necessary? Or would it not be more in accordance with the usual practice to continue the discussion on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" on the reassembling of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, I do not think it would be more in accordance with the usual practice. I do not know any occasion on which that Motion is taken the first Thursday after the Recess; and, as to the other question, there is no legal necessity in the matter, but simply a matter of Parliamentary convenience.

  ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved—
  "That To-morrow this House do meet at Twelve of the clock, and at its rising do adjourn till Thursday the 9th of April; that Government Business do have priority, and that so soon as such Business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire to call the attention of the House to the position in which it is placed with reference to public business. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman said just now that it
  392
  was contrary to Parliamentary convenience, though he knew of Parliamentary precedents, that the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates should take place on the first day after the Recess. But I would ask whether it is not contrary to Parliamentary convenience and to all Parliamentary precedent that a Bill of great importance—perhaps the most important Bill of the Session— should be brought forward on the day of the Adjournment. [Cheers.] No such thing, as far as I know, has ever been attempted before in the history of the House of Commons—certainly not within my knowledge or recollection. How is it we have been brought to this situation? [Ministerial cheers and counter cheers.] I venture to say that it is in consequence of the absolute departure from all precedent in Parliamentary management, a departure in every respect from the traditions and habits of the House of Commons in dealing with important Measures and with important Motions. Several Bills and Motions of great importance have been put down for particular days when hon. Members were in attendance, expecting them to be discussed, but there have been placed in front of them Measures of very minor consequence which have led to discussion, and which properly led to discussion. [Cheers and ironical laughter.] We have had more Closure in the course of the few weeks the House has been sitting than has taken place before in the course of a whole Session; but the Government could not intend, when they put down such a Bill as the exclusion by Statute of foreign cattle, that there should be no discussion upon it. I ventured to warn the right hon. Gentleman when I knew that there was to be a Second Reading of a Bill of that kind as to the length of time that might be occupied. In a former Session of Parliament we who sit on the Opposition Benches were not even allowed to introduce the First Reading of a Government Bill without discussion occupying a whole day or more—[Opposition cheers] —and yet a Bill of that character was put down before the Vote on Account. Every one knows that in various parts of the country there was great opposition to the Exclusion of Foreign Cattle Bill. It was sure to be strongly opposed both by

  393
  the agriculturists in the Eastern Counties as well as in Scotland, and also by many of the inhabitants of great towns. [Cheers.] It was a Measure, therefore, which was not only sure to be discussed, but it was a proper subject for discussion, and the consequence was that the Vote on Account did not come on the day appointed. I was amused this morning to see a letter from the Prime Minister describing the unpromising state of public business in the House of Commons. It is a remarkable thing that when the Queen's Speech was read I observed that I thought the enumeration of Measures on the part of the Government in that Speech was not likely to be fulfilled. That observation was resented by hon. Members opposite, many of whom are new to this House; and it was said, "Of course we are going to pass all these Measures." There has also occurred a circumstance that I do not recollect to hare occurred before. The ''massacre of the innocents" has been performed by the Prime Minister before Easter —[laugh-ter]—because one of the Measures to which I then called attention was a Measure for the exclusion of destitute aliens from this country; and the Prime Minister has already massacred that Bill before Easter. We have found time for the exclusion of foreign cattle, but not for the exclusion of foreign aliens at present, though the Foreign Alien Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, while- foreign cattle was not. [Laughter.] That is the first consequence of the unfortunate state of public business in the House of Commons. What happened again on Thursday? It was fixed for the Education Hill. Everyone would naturally expect that a Bill of that importance would have been brought forward at a time when questions might be put upon it with the fullest attendance of Members present. Every one is familiar with the arrangements made by hon. Members for leaving London on the day of the Adjournment; vet that is the day which is chosen for putting down the First Reading of a Bill which, I venture to say, according to the experience of previous Sessions, would have taken a whole night, perhaps two nights, if the Bill had been brought forward by this side of the House.
  394
  [Cheers.] The discussion on this Bill, however, is to be crammed into a morning sitting at 12 o'clock; and in this fashion the important Education Measure so much looked forward to is to be introduced by the Government. The time given to the Vote on Account and the Foreign Cattle Bill might have been bestowed on the Education Bill. What was the object of forcing on the Second Reading of the Foreign Cattle Bill? Even if it had been postponed until after Easter the Government had it in their power absolutely to prohibit the introduction of foreign cattle during the whole Session if they liked; and therefor there was no reason for putting that Bill before the Vote on Account. The Naval Works Bill was a very important Measure. It was a Measure which I ventured to inform the right hon. Gentleman would take up a considerable time in discussion, not that I and my Friends desired at all to obstruct it. On the contrary, what. I said was in support of that Bill; but every one knows that a Bill affecting various ports of the country would have various friends and opponents, and our experience had shown us that it was a Measure that would lead to a very elaborate discussion, and that as it raised questions of local interest it would occupy a considerable time. There again I gave a friendly warning to the right hon. Gentleman, but he said that an hour or two would dispose of it, just as he said the same thing about the Foreign Cattle Bill. That was a mistake. I cannot understand how such a mistake could have arisen, but the consequence has been to bring the whole of the public business of the House into confusion through having wasted time over those comparatively unimportant Measures. I may be wrong in the matter, but I do not know why it was absolutely necessary to pass the Naval Works Bill before Easter. I had the impression that, inasmuch as the money under the old Sinking Fund is not applied until the end of the financial year following, the Bill might have been passed later. At all events, other arrangements might have been made so as not to have made it necessary to put the Naval Works Bill before the Education Bill on the Thursday, and so that the House might have not been driven

  395
  into a corner, as it has been owing to the recent arrangements of public business. A question was raised by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet as to a discussion on the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. It is not in the least necessary that the Speaker should leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as if it was a thing which was always done.
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY: I did not say that.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, then you need not do it. In 1895 the Speaker left the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates on May 24; therefore the putting down of the Civil Service Estimates was a thing which was entirely unnecessary. If it is desired that there should be an adjournment on the discussion that the Speaker leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, there is no financial reason at all why that should not be done. The business which the Government expect to get through to-night on the Naval Works Bill, the Civil Service Estimates, and the Report of Supply is not giving the adequate time to those subjects which we have a right to ask. The business has been so conducted on those questions that the House is entitled to the opportunity of discussing important matters on these Motions. It has the right to discuss very important matters on the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and it has the right on the Report of Supply to discuss other matters; and, in my opinion, there never was a moment at which the House might more desire or had more right to discuss Motions of that kind than the very moment at which we now stand. An opportunity should now be afforded of discussing matters which are happening in South Africa, in Egypt, and many other things in which the House ought to take a deep interest, but we are driven, in consequence of the state of public business, into a corner, and there is not that opportunity of fair debate and discussion which the House ought to have, while we are to have launched at 12 o'clock to-morrow—on the day of the Adjournment of the House—one of the most important
  396
  Measures, if not the most important Measure, of the Session. [Cheers.] I spoke of the Bills which were announced in the Queen's Speech. We have had the Bill about foreign cattle, but as to the other Measures of great importance, we have had no announcement at all— the compensation to workmen for injuries—[cheers]—and the Employers' Liability Bill. Measures of comparatively secondary importance have been pushed forward to the exclusion of more serious business and to the loss of that time which the House ought to have for proper debate and consideration. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that he has been met by obstruction. I do not think that he would say so. If he did it would not be a fair statement. [Cheers.] At all events, in connection with those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, he has no right to say anything of the kind. [Ministerial cheers.] The Government demanded fair support and fair time, and I do not think that we have refrained from giving them both. I am very unwilling to enter on anything like recrimination on this matter, and therefore I will say nothing of the past. I speak only of the present, and I do not think that it can be charged against those who sit on this side of the House that they have given any unfair opposition to the Measures which the Government have proposed. I regard it as my duty to enter my protest against the position in which we are placed with respect to the Education Bill—a Measure in which it is known that very deep interest is felt and about which there is a great conflict of opinion. If the Measure of the Government is at all of the magnitude that has been hoped by some and apprehended by others, it is not fair to the House that it should be asked to sanction the introduction of the Bill at a morning sitting on the day fixed for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERdid not rise to intervene in the dispute between the late Leader of the House of Commons and his successor, which reminded him rather of the differences between the pot and the kettle—[laughter]—but for the purpose of asking the First Lord of the Treasury

  397
  to agree to some modification of his proposals with reference to their proceedings that evening. His right hon. Friend had said that he intended to take the stage of getting the Speaker out of the Chair at any hour that night, however late. Before that could be done they would have to dispose of the Naval Works Bill, a very important Measure, and he understood that there were several questions relating to urgent Foreign Affairs which were to be discussed, and were likely to occupy some little time. The, probability was, therefore, that the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair in order that the House might get into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates would not be made until an advanced hour. Consequently, on the questions which were to be raised on that Motion there would be no opportunity for adequate discussion. The course which the right hon. Gentleman purposed taking would establish a dangerous precedent. Already the privileges of private Members had been largely encroached upon during the present Session—[Oppsition cheers]— and he was at a loss to know why, for there was no great urgency in respect of any Measures of first importance before the House, and there had been no widespread obstruction to overcome. The fact was that the Conservative Party, whose principles had hitherto always been opposed to hasty legislation, were now, with their enormous Unionist majority creating precedents which in other hands might become a great danger to the State. [Laughter from the Opposition.] He only hoped that the majority of the House understood what they were doing, and that they would not bemoan their hard fate if in future years important Measures should be crammed down their throats without any discussion at all. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down is so much in the habit of advocating what he regards as the rights of private Members, and has so constantly before his mind what he calls "cramming legislation down the throat of the House of Commons," that, whatever may be the subject under discussion, his peroration always deals with this familiar theme. As a matter of fact there
  398
  is nothing in this Motion or in the business to be transacted to-night and to-morrow which could for a moment be described as cramming legislation down anybody's throat. Beyond the Third Reading of the Naval Works Bill, there is no legislation proposed to-night. Tomorrow, the proceedings begin at 12, and if the House desires to discuss the First Reading of the Education Bill for a considerable time, there is nothing in the Rules to prevent it from sitting the clock round. I cannot conceive that any such result is likely to occur, but it would be in the power of the House to occupy in the discussion of my right hon. Friend's Bill, as many hours as it should please. How, therefore, what we are doing can be described as "cramming legislation down the throat" of the House and the country I am utterly at a loss to understand. ["Hear, hear!"] My right hon. Friend says that I am asking the House to do a great deal too much business in the course of this evening's sitting. Had the House desired to proceed to business immediately after Questions were disposed of, I presume we could have got through the Naval Works Bill by 5 o'clock. There would then have been a long evening to devote to the discussion of the Resolutions on the Paper. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: ''What about the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?"] If the hon. Member chooses to move the Adjournment I must not be blamed for that. [''Hear, hear!"] I am pointing out what Members could have done if they had wished. They could have begun the discussion of the Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair at 5 o'clock. Then no one could have pretended, in view of the nature of the Resolutions down upon the Paper, that the time for their discussion was insufficient. The Leader of the Opposition has said that a night's discussion of the Amendments to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply is not enough, and that there are South African questions and others of great importance which the House is burning to discuss. The House may be burning to discuss those questions, but, at any rate, they have not been put down upon the Paper. Notices of Motion have been given with reference to affairs in the Turkish Empire, but beyond these questions I see

  399
  very little that ought to take up much time. There is a question, relating to Ireland, which the Irish Members themselves say will not take long; there is a Resolution about lunacy; there is another upon a subject that has already been discussed once this Session—namely, harbour accommodation in Scotland; and there is a small question concerning Wales. In these circumstances I fail to see what difficulty there can be in getting through the business on the Paper tonight without any undue pressure on the powers of endurance of hon. Members. Then I come to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, who says it is a monstrous novelty and inconvenience that the House should be asked, on the day before the holidays, to listen to my right hon. Friend's speech on so important a subject as Elementary Education. There are, no doubt, subjects which it would be improper for the Government to bring forward on the last day before the holidays. They are subjects on which the House might like to divide, and I recognise that it might be extremely inconvenient to hon. Members to attend in order to take part in a full-dress Division. But it is not usual to divide on the First Reading even of the most controversial Bills. It is sometimes done, but not often, and I do not think it likely that hon. Members will deem it necessary to divide on a Bill like the Education Bill, which is necessarily complicated in its provisions, before they have seen it in print. In these circumstances I cannot imagine a more convenient day—[laughter and cheers]— speaking relatively—on which this subject could be brought forward. If I deprive the right hon. Gentleman opposite of one day of his intended holidays —if he purposed going to the New Forest to-morrow, I apologise to him, but I may point out that if he likes to go he will, after all, be able to read a full account of my right hon. Friend's speech in the newspapers. [Opposition cries of ''Oh!'' laughter, and cheers.] Then he will be in no way prevented from taking his full share in the real discussion of the Bill on the Second Reading and in Committee, and though we should be sorry that he should not take part in our Debate to-morrow, it does not appear to me that any serious inconvenience will be caused to himself
  400
  if he is obliged to deprive himself of the opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] Whose feelings have I hurt? The only person whose feelings I could possibly have hurt is my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who may be deprived of one of the principal members of his audience. How I can have hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or of hon. Members behind him I fail to understand, but if I have injured the susceptibilities of hon. Members on the Back Benches "opposite J hope that they will accept my apologies. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman has surveyed the business of last week and has told us that on two occasions we have put down business before the Education Bill when we ought to have put it down first. He also grumbled at me because I put down my right hon. Friend's Bill with regard to the slaughter of cattle before the Vote on Account. The right hon. Gentleman forgot, or at all events omitted to state, that the Vote on Account was discussed the whole of the night before the Animals Bill was brought in. The Vote on Account has constantly been taken in one night. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, ''On Thursday night you put down the Naval Works Bill first when you ought to have known that there would be a long discussion on the Bill, which would render it impossible to bring in the Education Bill." It is no more possible to foresee the amount of discussion that is likely to take place on a particular Measure than it is possible to make an accurate forecast of the weather. You may see in The Times this morning that the weather is expected to be fine and dry; but, as a matter of fact, down comes a steady and continuous drizzle of rain, which prevents you seeing or doing anything or pursuing any other course whatever than that of putting up your umbrella and waiting with what philosophy you can muster for the rain to stop. That is an unpleasant state of things; but the man with the umbrella is not to blame— [laughter]—he is the victim, he is the sufferer. When he expected to have a comfortable and rapid walk, he finds himself storm-bound under the shelter of some tree. The truth is, while it is not my business to criticise the action which

  401
  hon. Gentlemen opposite chose to take on Thursday night with regard to the Naval Works Bill, it was not action that was approved of on the Front Bench opposite. The late Financial Secretary to the Admiralty himself expressed his regret at the necessity under which some of his Friends found themselves of discussing and rediscussing not the novel parts of the Bill, hut those parts of it which had already been adequately dealt with in a previous Session. ["Hear, hear!"] We could not foresee that discussion, and if the right hon. Gentle man could not sufficiently control his friends, that was not our fault.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: It was not so. My hon. Friend near me tells me there was more discussion on the other side of the House than on this. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is a question which is very easily answered by a reference to the Debates. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debate he will see that the lengthened discussion which took place on the old parts of the Bill came from his side of the House, and that the discussion on this side was in the main, though not entirely, on the new parts. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I sat through the whole of the Debate, and there was only one Amendment moved by Members of the Liberal Party sitting on this side of the House. Most of the discussion came from Members on the other side of the House. We made a protest that the discussion was confined to the old part of the Bill, and that a discussion of the new parts was prevented. [''Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and that his memory deceives him. There may possibly have been only one Amendment moved from that side of the House—though I am amazed at the number of Divisions that took place—but I think that if the hon. Gentleman will recall to his memory the agreeable recollection associated with the eloquence of the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire—[laughter] —and some others he will see that I have not greatly exaggerated, if at all, what took place on Thursday last. ["Hear, hear!"] But, after all, if it
  402
  was desirable to get the Naval Works Bill through, as it was, what other course could we have pursued? ["Hear, hear!"] If we had put it down second on Thursday last, I ask, should we have got it through that night at all? We should have been obliged to let the holidays go by without that Measure reaching a Third Reading. It is not absolutely necessary, but it is extremely convenient, from a financial point of view, that that Bill should be passed. The House of Lords is going to meet tomorrow for the purpose of passing it and making it law as soon as possible, and in these circumstances, if that proposition be granted, I do not believe any ingenuity will show that we could have better distributed Parliamentary time than by the plan we have actually adopted. [''Hear, hear!"] I am aware it is seldom the good fortune of the Leader of the House to please the Leader of the Opposition in the management of business. The right hon. Gentleman opposite never succeeded in pleasing me— [laughter]—and I do not anticipate that I shall ever succeed in pleasing him. [Laughter.] I greatly regret it, for there is no man whose good opinion I would rather have, and there is no man whose knowledge of the House of Commons makes him a more competent critic of those who are endeavouring to follow him in the office which he filled with so much distinction. [Cheers.] But when I try to sum up the errors which the Government are alleged to have committed in the conduct of business during the last fortnight, I cannot see that it comes to more than this—that hon. Gentlemen will have to choose between the pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend introducing the Education Bill and the pleasure of going a few hours earlier to their respective homes. [Laughter.] It may be a painful choice —[laughter]—and I regret that I should have been instrumental in compelling hon. Gentlemen to make it; but I hope they will believe me that, however unsuccessful my efforts may be to meet the convenience of all parties, I did my best, consistently with trying to get through what is the duty of the Government to ask the House of Commons to get through. [Cheers.]
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLasked whether the House

  403
  would adjourn to-morrow immediately after the discussion on the Education Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no doubt that the conduct of all Governments with regard to public business was bad —[laughter]—but he was quite ready to admit that the conduct of the present Government was exceptionally bad. He was afraid that that evening would be one of those uncomfortable and unpleasant drizzles—[laughter]—of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. He could only thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in calling it drizzle and not dribble. [Laughter.] He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was nothing that would come between the House and the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman himself was a Member of the Fourth Party in 1880. He remembered the exploits of that Party. Never was a Motion made such as the right hon. Gentleman had made that evening, that the House should adjourn for a holiday, without the Fourth Party bounding to its feet and discussing everything. [Laughter.] He had observed that hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly disliked being kept in the House till the early hours of the morning. He had a Motion on the Paper to reduce the salary of Lord Salisbury on the Report of the Vote on Account, that would probably come on about 3 o' clock in the morning, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that he was consulting their convenience if he raised the matter at the present time instead. He did not think they ought to adjourn the House without knowing more about the condition of the Soudan. The explanations given up to the present were contradictory and unsatisfactory.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order on this Motion in entering into the affairs of the Soudan. They must be discussed on the Vote on Account, which is an Order of the day.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he found it impossible to agree that the House should adjourn, not on account of the erroneous policy of this expedition, but
  404
  without knowing something of the reasons why it was sent; and with that view his object was to call the attention of the House to the very contradictory statements made by Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that improves the hon. Member's case. [Laughter.] I think the hon. Member is out of order in entering upon this question on this Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, Sir, how far might I go? [Laughter.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I can only call the hon. Gentleman to order if he transgresses. I cannot lay down for him a rule as to how far he may go. [Laughter.]
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was his anxious desire to enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to get to bed at an early hour, but he was afraid he should have to resume this matter on the Report stage of the Vote on Account. At the same time he would say that, as they had not yet had a clear and definite explanation from Her Majesty's Government, but only contradictory statements, with regard to this matter, he did object to the adjournment of the House until some such explanation was given. He, therefore, begged to move as an Amendment to the Resolution, that after the word "o'clock," the subsequent words, "and at its rising do adjourn till Thursday, the 9th of April," should be left out.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTdesired to ask a question on the point of order which had been raised. It had always been the practice of the House hitherto to allow considerable discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for a period of time. ["Hear, hear!"] He desired to know from the Speaker whether he had decided against that practice as a general rule, or whether he only ruled it out of order on this occasion because there was a subject of discussion—namely, the Vote on Account, subsequent to this, on which the question the hon. Member for Northampton wished to discuss could possibly be raised?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I ruled the hon. Member out of order because the matter which he proposed to Debate was one

  405
  which could be debated on the Vote on Account, and it has been ruled before in this House that where the Vote on Account is down for Debate an hon. Member cannot introduce, on a Motion as to Adjournment, a subject which it is open to him to Debate on the Vote on Account immediately afterwards.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Before the House divides on the Motion we ought clearly to understand the situation. [Cheers.] There is no doubt whatever, I think, that in the former practice of the House the Motion for Adjournment for a Recess, was one upon which all questions were discussed, and especially questions of important foreign or colonial affairs which might cause anxiety during the period of the Recess. That was the special object why, upon the Motion for the Adjournment, these questions were brought up, so that the House and the country might have information which would justify them in giving a Recess of greater or less length. ["Hear, hear!"] If it is impossible upon this Motion to obtain information in the critical position of foreign affairs, and the extremely critical position of colonial affairs, as to what the situation is either in Egypt or Matabeleland, then I shall certainly vote for a very short Recess. If the House of Commons is disabled from obtaining from the Government full information, such as we ought to have upon this subject, then I really do not think we ought to adjourn for ten days; therefore, I should support any Motion which shortened the Recess in order that the House or Commons might be present to receive any information which it is not now in a position to obtain. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsuggested as a way out of the difficulty that the First Lord of the Treasury should confine his Motion to stating that the sitting to-morrow should commence at 12 o'clock; then let the sitting be devoted to the introduction of the Education Bill, and at the close of the discussion on that Bill the Motion for the Adjournment could be made, upon which the House should enjoy its immemorial right of discussing the policy of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESobserved that no one would dis-
  406
  pute the Speaker's ruling, as there could be no doubt of the impropriety of discussing on the Motion for the Adjournment matters which might arise on the Vote on Account. But in this particular case he would point out that the fact that the Government had put down the Vote on Account when the Adjournment was to be moved practically cut the House off from everything. The Vote on Account contained everything except the Army and Navy, and, therefore, they were debarred from having the usual explanations of Ministers on matters of high import concerning the foreign policy of the Government, and of their intentions with regard to their acts during the Recess. That was the practical effect of putting down the Vote on Account for the same day as that upon which the Motion for the holidays was to be moved. He hoped it would be a warning to the Government in future to abstain from, and for the Opposition to resist the putting down of such a Vote upon such an occasion. In regard to the Education Bill he thought it was a proper thing to introduce it under these circumstances. In the first place there would be a select audience of those interested in that Bill, and in the second place, after having heard the speech of the Minister who introduced the Measure, instead of getting up and replying offhand, with unconsidered arguments, hon. Members would go away and be able to reflect upon it, during the holidays, at their leisure. But what he wished to say was that he had seen no reason at all why the Government should insist upon moving the Speaker from the Chair before Easter. He thought the Government had already sacrificed too much to Supply. In his opinion the Secretary to the Treasury was ruling them with a rod of iron. He would not let them introduce their Bills or explain their policy, but insisted on having the whole time of the House for Supply. He would point out to his right hon. Friend that it was not necessary to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before Easter, and, therefore, in the interests of fine weather and fair discussion he would suggest that the Government should not insist upon the Speaker leaving the Chair to-day on the Civil Service Estimates. He attached the greatest possible importance to this discussion with the

  407
  Speaker in the Chair, because it was one of the last opportunities left to hon. Members to discuss high general questions of policy involved in the Estimates. On the Estimates themselves in Committee they could only discuss little details, to which they were confined with the utmost strictness. The three discussions on the three occasions of the Speaker leaving the Chair on different classes of Estimates were, he took it, saved by the House in order to retain some opportunity of having a general discussion on high questions of policy. He thought it would not meet the intention of the rule of the House that they should be tied down to a small fraction of a day on a discussion such as this, and he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury and the First Lord of the Treasury that they might, perhaps, withdraw their proposal, or, at any rate, might forego their intention of moving the Speaker out of the Chair after what must be a most inadequate discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite appears to think that it is very necessary to have another discussion on foreign and colonial affairs in addition to those we have recently had. I thought, especially as regards foreign affairs, that I gave the House an exceptionally favourable opportunity. But, if it is desired, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that colonial affairs are so pressing that something must be done to give the in House an opportunity for further discussion, I will, if it is insisted upon, put down the Colonial Vote for the first day after the Recess. Absolutely nothing fresh has occurred, so far as the Government are aware, either in colonial or foreign affairs, during the last week which should necessitate further discussion on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is nothing, so far as we are aware, with which the House of Commons could profitably deal at the present moment.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Matabeleland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No. I understand that the House knows all that has taken place as well as my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. There is no information kept back, and there is nothing to cause us grave anxiety in that quarter
  408
  of our Colonial possessions—["Hear, hear!"]—and under these circumstances I really think that that particular reason for the Amendment is one that cannot be sustained. With regard to the Amendment, I would only remind the House that it is one against the holidays, and the House of Commons is very much changed if it supports a proposal of that character. I hope the hon. Gentlemen opposite will go to a Division, as I should like to see whether the House really desires, in the first place, that to-morrow shall not be occupied with the Education Bill alone, but, in addition, shall have a long and miscellaneous discussion upon all things in heaven and earth. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. ALLENasked the Speaker whether he might ask the First Lord of the Treasury, on this Motion, a question as to an event which might possibly occur in Matabeleland before the House met again?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The proper time for asking such a question will be when the Motion is made for the Adjournment of the House to-night.
  MR. ALLEN,MR. ALLEN, on a point of order, asked whether this was not a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is a Motion that the House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn until a future day.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid, he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury had treated this matter quite fairly. He said the Amendment was an Amendment against the holidays. It was more than that. It was an Amendment directed against the latter portion of the Resolution, that the House do adjourn without question put, thus abrogating a constitutional right of the House. He thought they might very well support the Amendment to leave out all the Resolution after the words 12 o'clock.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The Amendment is to leave out the words "and at its rising do adjourn till' Thursday, the 9th of April."
  MR. FLYNN: Then I beg to move the omission of all the words fitter 12 o'clock.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment now before the House precludes the hon. Member from doing that at present.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYhoped the hon. Member for Northampton was not going to put the House to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Certainly.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was sorry to hear that, because he was entirely with him in his desire to get further information from the Government. He was one of those who had been bewildered by the various voices on foreign affairs—[Opposition cheers]—but he did not see how they could get any expression of opinion on this Amendment that would be satisfactory to any one who was particularly interested in what was going on in foreign affairs. It was, moreover, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, an Amendment against the holidays, and most assuredly the House should have some holidays at Easter. The hon. Member had got an opportunity of raising this question in a direct fashion to-night, even if it was at a late hour, and he hoped he would not put before the House a false issue on the present question.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 87.—(Division List, No. 78.)
  Mr. D. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs) moved to leave out "That Government business do have priority." He said the course which the Government proposed to take by the Resolution was altogether unprecedented, and the Leader of the House had given the House; no reason for adopting it. Although the House had been sitting only a few weeks, all the Fridays had been taken from private Members, several of the; Tuesdays had been appropriated, and one or two Wednesdays had been trespassed upon. In addition to this there had been several Motions to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, and there had been one or two all-night sittings. [" Hear,
  410
  hear!"] The Government having taken to themselves all this time from private Members, he contended that it was monstrous that they should now take, on the eve of a holiday, another Tuesday belonging to private Members, and even alter the rules of sitting for that day to meet their convenience. ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to say that such a course at such a time was absolutely unprecedented, especially as the Leader of the House had shown no reason of urgency to justify it. ["Hear, hear!"] He objected to this course because there were several Motions of a practical and important character which might otherwise have been brought forward by hon. Members, but he objected to it especially as a Welsh Member, because under ordinary circumstances, and if Government business had not priority, it was by no means improbable that the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Denbigh, relating to Sunday closing in Wales, would be reached before the dinner hour. The Welsh Members had been waiting for eight years for an opportunity to bring that question, in which the people of the Principality were deeply interested, before the House, and now, when they saw that opportunity within reach, the Government came down and, without giving any satisfactory reason for doing so, claimed the time for a Bill of their own. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid, no one felt more interest in education than he did, and he was as anxious as any one could be that the promised Measure should be brought forward before the Recess; at the same time he felt that it would be very unfair of the Government if they deprived the Welsh Members of the opportunity of discussing the liquor question in Wales on the Motion he had on the Paper. The Welsh people were deeply interested in the matter, and he hoped the Leader of the House would give him and his Friends some opportunity, however brief, of bringing the matter forward. [" Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hardly thought it would be desirable to persist in this Amendment, because, if so, the Education Bill might not be brought forward at all before the Recess. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed that he was very much surprised to hear the

  411
  Leader of the House recommend hon. Gentlemen to go away and to learn the proceedings of the House from the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He did not think language of that kind proceeding from the Leader of the House was right.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No such language, nor anything like it, proceeded from me. [Cheers.]
  *SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he begged pardon; it was addressed personally to himself. It was to the effect that he should go away and learn the views of the Government on the education question from the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!"] All he could say was, that if those were the views adopted by the Leader of the House of Commons, he did not wonder at the condition into which business had fallen. He certainly did not think that such a suggestion had ever before proceeded from the Leader of this House. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped hon. Members would attend, in spite of any inconvenience that might be imposed upon them by the arrangements the Government had made, to hear the Bill explained and to ask such questions as might be necessary to understand the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] He now understood that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was no financial necessity for having put forward the Naval Works Bill. If the First Lord of the Admiralty were to tell him that it was necessary for financial purposes under this Bill that it should be passed before the end of the financial year, he should be satisfied. But he did not understand that any such statement was made on the part of the Government. Indeed, it could only arise upon the disposal of the Sinking Fund. As the Sinking Fund was disposed of at the end of the year, he did not understand that there was any absolute financial necessity why this Bill should have passed before the end of the financial year; in fact, the First Lord of the Treasury admitted there was not. As regarded the other parts of the Bill, he knew it was not necessary, because the Liberal Government were not allowed to pass the Naval Works Bill last year till after the Government had been defeated in the month of June. Therefore, unless the matter arose on the Sinking Fund, and unless it
  412
  could be stated that financial purposes rendered it absolutely necessary to pass the Bill, there would be no reason for bringing it on. But as the House generally was desirous that the Education Bill should be brought on upon the following day, he thought it would be unwise to persist in the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsuggested that a way out of the difficulty would be for the House to sit on Wednesday. [Cries of "No!"] They had now been sitting six weeks and he had no hesitation in saying that during that time greater onslaughts had been made on the rights and privileges of private Members than ever before in the history of Parliament. On several occasions the Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended, Fridays had been taken altogether by the Government, and several Tuesdays had been taken as well. There was no difficulty about the introduction of the Education Bill, inasmuch as that could be very well taken on Wednesday. It was monstrous that the Government should come down and say to private Members, "We have a Bill on the question of Education in which you are all interested, but if you want to hear it explained you will have to give up one of your private days." That was not treating the House fairly. He would not presume to give the hon. Member for Carnarvon advice, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would press his Amendment to a Division. He could not help feeling that in their attacks upon the privileges of private Members, the Government had been greatly encouraged by the attitude of Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. If the Government could count upon stern opposition from Gentlemen on the Front Bench, there would be fewer attacks of this kind.
  *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Gentleman that the House had already decided to adjourn after the Morning Sitting to-morrow till Thursday week. The hon. Member suggested that the House should sit on Wednesday. The House had decided not to sit on Wednesday.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the Amendment was to leave out the words "giving priority to Government business tomorrow." He was endeavouring to show

  413
  that tomorrow need not be taken for Government business, as Wednesday could be taken.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had already pointed out to the hon. Member that the House had decided not to sit on Wednesday.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, it would be vain in him to suppose that the House would take his advice, but he thought the Government had been so well treated during the Session, that they ought not to ask for priority for their business to-morrow.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is acting quite contrary to my ruling.
  MR. W. REDMONDhad no desire to disobey the ruling of the Chair, indeed he was only endeavouring to point out that the Government had plenty of opportunities for their business without taking to-morrow. Personally, he greatly sympathised with the Welsh Members who were to be deprived of bringing in to-morrow a subject in which they were deeply interested, in consequence of the course the Government had elected to follow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF TICK TREASURYconfessed that he did not sympathise with the Welsh Members, because in the first place their Motion stood fourth on to-morrow's Paper, and in the second place it had been well known for a long time past that it was intended to rise for the Easter Holidays to-morrow. In addition to that the Government always took the Morning Sitting, after which the House rose for their own business. They merely proposed to follow precedent, and he was certain they were not disappointing any hopes which could be legitimately entertained by any one at all conversant with Parliamentary procedure.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the subject which the Welsh Members had down to-morrow was not only an extremely important one but one on which opinion in Wales had been expressed with an emphasis rarely exceeded. Already two of the three nights which Welsh Members had secured had been taken away from them, and, therefore, they might reasonably protest against the pressure which was being brought to bear on private Members.
  *SIR. G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid that at the risk of being considered insubordinate to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, he should support the hon. Member for Carnarvon if he went to a Division. He protested against the way private Members had been treated during this Session. Of all Members the Welsh had been treated the worst. To-morrow the subject in which he and his hon. colleagues were concerned would naturally come on, and it was no fault of theirs the Education Bill had not been brought on before. If it had been placed first instead of second on the Paper last Thursday (as it ought to have been) it might have been introduced four days ago. The Leader of the House had the whole time at his disposal and could bring on the Education Bill on an early day after the holidays, but if his hon. Friend missed the opportunity of bringing on his Motion to-morrow he would not be able to move it again this Session.
  MR. T. R. LEUTYsaid he had no consuming desire to see the Education Bill. He should only add that if the Member for Carnarvon should go to a Division he should vote with him.
  MR. FLYNNsaid they had no great desire to see the Education Bill at the cost of the rights of private Members. There were plenty of opportunities to bring in the Bill on Thursday or Friday, and, therefore, there was no justification for taking away the rights of private Members. He had no desire to occupy the time of the House, as he had an Amendment of his own to bring forward later on. [Laughter.]
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: — Ayes, 254; Noes, 72.—(Division List, No. 79.)
  Mr. FLYNN Mr. FLYNN moved to leave out all the words after the word "priority." Irish and Radical Members had been accused of not being so tender of the constitutional rights and safeguards of the House as the Conservative Party. But on this occasion, he contended, they

  415
  were defending them. It was quite conceivable that by to-morrow night grave incidents might have occurred, as to which hon. Members would require information or an explanation. The danger of the situation was sufficiently obvious; and, as the hon. Member for the Liskeard Division had stated, they were absolutely in a state of bewilderment. But no matter how serious or dangerous the state of affairs might be in Egypt, in North or South Africa, they would not be able to discuss it, or ask for information, if this Motion was passed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 84.—(Division List, No. 80.)
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 73.—(Division List, No. 81.)
  Resolved,
  "That To-morrow this House do meet at Twelve of the clock, and at its rising do adjourn till Thursday the 9th of April; that Government business do have priority, and that so soon as such business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved:—
  "That the Proceedings on Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes. 86.—(Division List, No. 82.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid, he regretted that on what was a formal stage of a Bill of this kind it was his duty to ask the House to listen to some remarks on the Bill. Brief reference was necessary to the history of the Bill. He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury had countenanced the insinuation, which he himself was not surprised to find in certain newspapers, that the long discussion on Thursday night was due to the obstructive tactics of the Opposition. Now, of the 6½ hours which the Committee stage of the Bill occupied, he found that four hours were occupied by supporters of the Government and only 2½ hours by Members of the Opposition. It was to be regretted that so much of the time was taken up in discussing the old items in the schedule. There was this striking peculiarity about the Bill, that the whole of the Bill was contained in the schedule. This was treated as a clause, and closured under the rule relating to clauses which did not fairly apply to schedules.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,)rose to Order. If the hon. Gentleman was entitled to question the application of the Closure, he should claim the right of reply.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the decision of the Chairman of Committees as to the Closure.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he did not intend to discuss the Chairman's ruling, but he desired, if in order, to doubt the propriety of the Rule which admitted of old items sanctioned by Statute, and which could not be got rid of unless the Statute were repealed, being discussed in principle on the Committee stage of the Bill. He ventured to think the Rule should be altered, and such items should only be allowed to be discussed on a Motion that the Statute authorising the expenditure should be repealed. The

  417
  Committee, after spending much time on the old items in the Schedule, was prevented from discussing the most important of the new items. The First Lord of the Admiralty pulled the wrong tooth.
  THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY,THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY, again interposing, said the hon. Member was discussing the Chairman's ruling as to the Closure.
  *MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member to abstain from criticising the application of the Closure.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he would not do more than ask the First Lord to kindly give information on certain points which had really not been discussed in; any previous stage of the Bill. First he would inquire as to the expenditure on new docks at Gibraltar. No one who knew anything about the Bill would deny the enormous importance of this item in the Schedule. The proposals involved an expenditure of £2,750,000 of public money, and this he did not think the House fully realised. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to kindly explain the site of the new docks at Gibraltar. The late Government proposed to build one new dock on the site of the now mole. It was now proposed to extend this dock further out into the water, and to build two other docks side by side. His next point was a financial one. The country had been struck— though not so much as it might have been—by the enormous addition to the expenditure proposed by the late Government. The latter proposed £360,000, the present Government proposed £2,670,000. According to the Schedule the difference was that, instead of building only one dock as the late Government proposed, it was now proposed to build three docks. But that did not account for the £2,750,000. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much of this was attributable to the building of docks, without dockyard extension and other works which were not provided for in the original Schedule of the Bill of the late Government. He would also like to know how this great work at Gibraltar was to be done, and whether the present Board of Admiralty adhered to the intention of the late Board that the work should be done, not by contract, but by the Admiralty. The next point, which hitherto had hardly been mentioned, was
  418
  the extension of docks at Hong Kong. He understood that the difficulties which formerly existed on the part of the Colonial Office had been removed. The expenditure on Hong Kong was to be increased, and he wished to know whether this was partly accounted for by our having to buy foreshore rights. One great difficulty was as to the local road called the Priory Road. The residents of Hong Kong insisted upon a public promenade being thrown right across the Hong Kong Dockyard, or, rather, between the dockyard and the sea, and overlooking the dockyard; and that was considered to be, inconvenient. After all that had been said by representatives of the Admiralty, he still remained unconvinced of the prudence of the change they are making and of the way in which they are proposing to make it. To his mind, the question of a Naval College versus the Britannia could not be properly decided without taking into account the whole system of naval education. Three years' official experience and subsequent opportunity for reflection had raised in his mind doubts whether the Britanuia stage in the education was necessary at all. That doubt became more important when it was proposed to raise the age for the admission of cadets into the Britannia and to change that into a school on shore. He would urge that this was the time for the reconsideration of the education of naval officers in all its parts. There was no connection, in principle, theory or fact, between the school system of the Britannia and the subsequent technical instruction in what might be called the University to the Britannia, nor between the one or the other, and the third and still higher stage which was carried on at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. For himself he would hesitate at the point that was now reached, and he would not lay a single brick of the college until he, had fully considered, in a way that it never had been considered, the whole subject of the scientific and technical training of naval officers. He was speaking now as he had acted through the course of this Bill and that was as a strong supporter of the Bill. He had done all he could to facilitate the discussion of the Bill, and he did not regret that it was getting through the House at a date months earlier than the

  419
  late Government, under much greater necessities, were permitted to have their Bill. He sympathised with the work proposed to be carried out, and it would be inconsistent for him or any other Member of the late Admiralty to adopt any other attitude towards the Bill. He hoped the rather confused Debates would not mislead the public mind as to the real origin and purpose of the Bill. This was the third edition, with large extensions, of a programme winch owed its first inception entirely to the late Admiralty. It was two years since this programme was brought in first on the Estimates. Then it was embodied in the Naval Works Bill of last year. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had attributed the programme to an agitation about Gibraltar. The present Government did not originate the plans; they were laid down in the time of the late Government, who, indeed, took up the scheme which had been considered by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and his colleagues. It did not need any outside pressure to induce the late Government to take up the scheme. The House and the country little knew how much they were indebted to the action and inspiration of the Leader of the Opposition, who was the real author of these proposals. Ten years ago he attempted to induce the House to begin the great scheme, which was now to receive the sanction of the House, for the making of a harbour at Dover. He hoped that no one would impair the unanimity of the House by offering opposition to the Third Reading of a Bill which represented the opinion of both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He looked with suspicion upon advice coming from the Front Opposition Bench. He objected to the increase of the Navy because it was not necessary. The Irish people were called upon to pay a considerable proportion of the increased demand for the Navy, and they derived absolutely no benefit from the Navy. The only danger Ireland stood in dread of was due to her connection with Great Britain. If Ireland was a freely-governed country unconnected with Great Britain she would be no more open to attack than Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, or
  420
  any of the other countries which were independent and were not threatened with attack. The continuous expansion of Navies was a policy which was calculated to bring ruin on the countries that persisted in it. But if this money was to be voted, and the Irish people were to be compelled to pay a large proportion of it, it was only reasonable that they should consider themselves ill-treated when it was proposed to spend merely a trifle out of all these millions in Ireland. The hon. Member for Dundee, with all his sympathy for Ireland, did not do much when in office to divert some of the millions voted for the Navy to Ireland. The present Government had gone a step in the right direction, for they proposed to spend £50,000 of the £60,000 on the improvement of Haulbowline Docks at Queenstown; but still that was a miserably-inadequate step. He had no doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty would make the plausible reply that this money was not to be spent according to the nationalities or countries of the United Kingdom, but according to the requirements of the Service. But that was not a sufficient answer to the Irish people. They complained that while they would have to pay at least one-twelfth of this money—which was more than their due proportion—only a few paltry thousands were to be spent in their country. All round Ireland there were abundant natural facilities for the construction of harbours and naval works of all kinds, such as did not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom; but they were ignored because it was the policy of all Governments to boycott Ireland, and not to spend there a single penny that could be avoided. According to the highest financial authorities of the country Ireland was paying a great deal more than her fair proportion, according to her population and resources, to the Imperial revenue. That, surely, was a strong reason why some of this money should be spent in Ireland, if it was to be spent at all. But of the millions voted every year to the Admiralty thousands of pounds were spent at Gibraltar, or at Hong Kong, or in some other part of the world, rather than in Ireland. And yet the people of Ireland were expected to be as content and as peaceable as the people of Great

  421
  Britain, who had their taxes spent amongst them. The fact was that no Government would secure the good-will or the allegiance of the Irish people until even-handed justice in the expenditure of the Imperial revenue was dealt out between England, Ireland, and Scotland. He was not surprised that representatives of working-class constituencies in England, who were opposed to war, should still support this Bill, because the money voted under the Bill would be spent in the industrial centres of the country, and hundreds of thousands of artisans would consequently be able to live in comfort; but the people of Ireland, who would get no benefit from the Bill, regarded it in a different light. Nothing was more certain than that if the people of Ireland were supporters of the Government some justice could be done them in the matter, and convinced as they were of that fact he voiced their feelings in making this protest against giving Ireland only £50,000 or £60,000 out of the millions voted under the Bill, while most of it was to be spent in this country. But he did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not base his opposition to the Bill mainly on the small proportion of the money that was to be spent in Ireland. He opposed the Bill in the first place because he was convinced that huge armaments would be the ruin of every country that had undertaken them, and that it was only a question of time when Italy, France and Germany would become bankrupt. In the second place he opposed the Bill because there was a feeling in Ireland that this naval programme was intended as a menace to the United States. Such a thing would not be tolerated for a moment by the Irish people, and they would do everything in their power to oppose any accession to the strength of this country if that strength were to be used against the United States, which had given to millions of their race the shelter and fair play denied them under the Union. Jack. He had heard that it was in contemplation to establish some sort of works on the coast of Ireland; but whether that were the case or not, he expected from the Government some recognition of the earnestness and sincerity with which the Irish Members had brought forward this grievance. He begged to move.
  MR. L. P. HAYDENseconded the Amendment.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, that this, like other of the far-reaching Bills of the Government, had been carried through with undue haste. These important proposals justified some consideration, especially if they were to be agreed to in the unanimous manner for which the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty had appealed. He had not been greatly moved by the hon. Gentleman's appeal; and he regretted that there was not more "discordance on the Liberal Benches" in regard to these proposals of the Government. There were but few to uphold the old watchword of "peace, retrenchment and reform." He noticed that there was a genial contest between the two Front Benches as to the authorship of this programme; but if that programme went on developing as it had done its authorship would involve a very serious responsibility. The first proposal was made as a part of the Naval Estimates of two years ago, and though an expenditure of four millions odd was then contemplated, only a quarter of a million was asked for within the year. The second edition of the proposal was put forward last year, when the total expenditure had risen to eight millions, and the year's contribution to one million. Now the third edition anticipated a gross expenditure of 14 millions and an expenditure in the present year of 2¾ millions. What he wished to know was whether we had at last got to the outside estimate. [Opposition cries of "No!"] He was alarmed at the rapidity with which these enormous demands grew. If the First Lord of the Admiralty confirmed the suggestions which had been made that the Estimates would yet reach 30 or 40 millions, he should be doubly resolved to do that which he had already nearly determined to do—vote against the Third Reading. The hon. Member for East Clare deserved the greatest credit for the manner in which he had represented the case of Ireland in regard to this expenditure. For the last 70 years or more no one had known exactly how much of this extravagant expenditure Ireland had had to bear. Ireland was not progressing as was Great Britain, nor did she require the Navy in the same

  423
  way, and, therefore, some consideration ought to be shown to her. But he did not agree with the hon. Member for East Clare in the argument that some of the money should be spent in Ireland in order to conciliate the hostility of Ireland to these proposals. What Ireland wanted was not a little largesse, but an end to the extravagance.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYsaid as his constituents were getting the lion's share of this expenditure he naturally did not oppose the Government's proposals; and he thought that the view of his hon. Friend was most misguided. But he wished to know, whether the Government were making any arrangements for the housing of the large number of workmen who would be brought into the neighbourhood of Keyham by the extension scheme. It was reported that the contractor was likely to be delayed by being unable to procure suitable dwellings for his workmen. It would be an opportune step on the part of the Government to make representations to those who had the control of the land in the neighbourhood of Devonport. As to the site of the new Naval College, of course the most eligible spot in the whole of the kingdom was on the banks of the Tamar.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I need not say that I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill; but, referring to what has been stated earlier in the evening, I must say that I do not think it is a creditable thing that the House of Commons should pass the Third Reading of this Bill under the circumstances in which this Bill stands. ["Hear, hear!"] This is a Bill which commits the country and the taxpayers to an amount something like 14 or 15 millions. A certain part of that expenditure has been discussed last year and this year; but the expenditure which is the newly-proposed expenditure, amounting to 3¼ millions, has never been discussed by the House of Commons at all. [Cheers.] I am not at liberty to refer to the circumstances which have led to that position of things. But this is the fact —that the House of Commons is going to read a Third time a Bill for the expenditure of 3¼ millions which the House of Commons had not been allowed to discuss. [Cheers.] It is not for me nor for hon. Gentlemen opposite to
  424
  vindicate the rights of another assembly which claims the privilege to correct the errors of the House of Commons. We have always been told that if the House of Commons, either by accident or intention, has not properly discussed a subject, the House of Lords will always take care to do so, but arrangements have been made that this Bill is not only to be brought forward in another place, but passed through all its stages in a few minutes, so that that great Assembly which corrects our errors shall not be allowed a word to say on the Bill. This is in consequence of the arrangements that have been made for public business in this House. There is no reason whatever why this Bill should not be passed a month hence just as well as to-day, and the consequence, as I have ventured to point out, is discreditable to the House of Commons. Take Gibraltar. There is an increase of £2,300,000 upon the proposals of last year. Not a word was permitted in Committee upon that subject. There are other measures of less importance, such as Keyham and Chatham Naval Hospital. Those matters have never been discussed. If the Government had accepted the proposal I ventured to submit of adjourning on Thursday night when they found the discussion going to a considerable length, we should have passed the Third Reading under circumstances very different from those under which it is now to be passed. I make these observations, not in hostility to the Bill, but I could not allow the Bill to be read a Third time without protesting against the manner in which it has been treated in Committee, and without any adequate explanation of this enormous expenditure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I think the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the desire of the House to discuss the various items set out in the Bill. If there had been a general desire to discuss in Committee some of those items, the desire would have become known and notice would have been given. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he thought he should have been able to discuss one subject on Report. That was a gratuitous assumption on his part, and surely the Government are not to be blamed because the hon. and learned Gentleman

  425
  missed his opportunity, although I admit the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been the person most competent to discuss it. The fact is, the Bill has not been elaborately discussed because the great majority of the House on both sides believe that the Bill is necessary and expedient, and because the main items of which it is made commend themselves at once to the commonsense of the great majority. One of the main items is under Gibraltar, with regard to which there was a discussion, and as to which I gave explanations. Plans, too, have been accessible to those Members who desired to discuss it, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman in his pro formâ denunciation of our proceedings on this occasion must know that there was no desire to discuss that matter with any elaboration whatever; and the House is in possession of the knowledge which they desire. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear his colleague, the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, state that there was very little inclination to discuss the Naval Works Bill much further, and that a very short time would be enough to dispose of it, and yet the right hon. Gentleman in his high constitutional manner —[laughter] —denounces us for not giving ample time for discussion on the Third Reading. [Cheers.] This is an ex post facto discovery on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that Gibraltar has not been discussed. In Committee there was a six-and-a-half hours' discussion. Half the time was taken up with a discussion as to whether Ireland ought not to have a portion of the money. While admitting the importance of that question, I think it might have been discussed with much greater brevity. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his remarks went back pretty far, and suggested that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was the original father of the whole scheme. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Dover."] He did not confine it to Dover, but, in his anxiety to give the right hon. Gentleman as much credit as he could, said that the Scheme really originated with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer ten years ago. I am bound to say that, considering the time
  426
  the right hon. Gentleman has been in office, it is a pity much greater progress has not been made before now with these works.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: You were in office for six of the years.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I was leading up to that point. I do not wish to dispute in the least who should have the credit for any of these Bills. I claim no credit for myself. I give large credit to Lord Spencer, and I give great credit to the Naval Lords and naval experts who, taking a wide survey of the necessities of the Empire, have framed a plan which successive Governments have adopted. I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Islington, that this Bill will mark the end of our proposals. It is possible, indeed, that more than the money asked for in the Bill will be required. It is proposed to construct docks at the Mauritius and Simons Town. But, except in the case of Dover, where we have nothing to go upon, we have done our best to accurately forecast the cost, and we have endeavoured to over-estimate rather than under-estimate. With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member opposite as to Hong Kong, the cost is £320,000, and we have not included any amount for the foreshore. Praya Road, in front of the dockyard, is to be abandoned, and Queen's Road from Murray Pier to the Blue Buildings is to be widened by 75ft. We have come to a compromise with the authorities on the subject, and we are able to go rapidly forward with this important work. I am unable to give the hon. Member the division of the money between the docks and the site of the buildings. It could not be stated what amount should be attributed to one work and what amount to the other. In determining what should be done with regard to the Naval College, it was thought advisable that the whole question of naval education should be taken into account. It is a difficult and complicated problem, but it is one which is engaging my attention at the present time. We are not only examining into the question of the Britannia; but also into the

  427
  question of further examinations and training on board ship, as well as taking a survey of the education of the naval officer from the first moment he enters the Service to the time when it is considered that his whole education as a seaman and officer is complete. The hon. Member for Devonport suggested that the Tamar would be a preferable place to the Dart, that it would be more accessible to Devonport. I hold, however, that to get cadets into the neighbourhood of dockyard towns would be a very great mistake in many respects. The hon. Member for Clare asked me to put myself in the position of Irish Members, and to judge whether I should not oppose the Bill. I should not oppose this Bill if I were in their place, because I am of opinion that it is for the defence of the Empire as a whole, and Ireland is as much exposed to hostile attack as any portion of Her Majesty's dominions. [Dr. TANNER: "Haulbowline."] We are going to spend a considerable sum of money on Haulbowline. [Mr. W. REDMOND: "Who is going to attack Ireland?"] Ireland's enemies would be England's enemies, and I will not recognise that there is any difference between the position of loyal Irishmen and the position of loyal Englishmen or Scotsmen; we must all be equally interested in the Empire. It is said that a portion of the money should be spent in Ireland. But take such localities in England as Essex and towns on the east coast. Not a shilling will be spent there; and I do not see the difference between living in a part of England where money is not to be spent and Iceland. The money ought to be spent solely where it is wanted, and anything else will savour in the end of a kind of political corruption. If we were to say that this part of the country is entitled to more than any other, it would be on political grounds, rather than on strategical and national grounds, that the money will be spent. It is not only in the case of Ireland that we resist this expenditure. Take the case of London. We have taken up the same attitude there as we have taken up with regard to Ireland— namely, that the money ought to be spent according to the strategical necessities of the situation. I hope the House will now read the Bill a third time.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  DR. TANNERasked if in this matter Ireland was being fairly treated. He declared it was not. He had had an opportunity of speaking to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and had got an assurance that the points he had raised should be considered, but how many years had Ireland been waiting for what might be done in connection with Haulbowline? He recollected, when a boy, being told by a naval officer, who had since become an Admiral, that Haulbowline was the very place for a big naval station. Many millions of money were now being spent, and after their professions of their intention of benefiting Ireland, he held that the present Government was in duty bound to stand to their words and spend some of the money in that country. Haulbowline was admirably adapted for a naval station. If there was a war with America to-morrow, what would be the most western point for the docking of any disabled ships? Would it not be Haulbowline?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there is nothing about Haulbowline in this Bill. The hon. Member cannot, on the Third Reading, discuss the merits of Haulbowline as a station.
  DR. TANNEBwas not going to weary the House with the merits or demerits of the three docks at Gibraltar. Numbers 2 and 3, he understood, would be all right, but dock No. 1, he was told, would not be practicable, owing to its defective entry. When they were dealing so much with Gibraltar, why did not the Government take into consideration the whole question, and do something effectively for Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to be more relevant in his observations.
  DR. TANNERdid not desire to weary the House, but would certainly vote against this Bill, as he believed it to be a bad Bill, due only to the very peculiar circumstances which happened to be the outcome of the working of the present Government, and as an Irishman, he hoped that everything they did would be ineffective and to the glory of the enemy.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEdesired to obtain some information about Pembroke Dock. The matter was raised on the Hill of last year—of which this was a kind of elaboration when the Secretary for India took a very keen interest in. the subject, and delivered a rather important speech. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman was not present, because there were one or two explanations he might like to give upon his speech of last year. He under stood the Government hoped to spend a certain amount of money upon the erection of a jetty and pair of shear legs at Pembroke Docks. He wanted some explanation upon the point. The late Government, upon being pressed by the then Member for Pembroke Boroughs, admitted the necessity for the erection of a jetty and pair of shear legs, and undertook to put the Votes requisite for their provision into the Estimates for the present year. What he wanted to point out was this, that, according to the First Lord of the Admiralty's contention the other night, the present Government were prepared to do exactly what the present Secretary for India pledged them in Opposition to do. If that was so, he should like to know, in the first instance, how it was that when the Civil Lord in the late Government undertook to do what the First Lord was prepared to do now, except that he was prepared to do it this year instead of next year, the present Secretary for India was not satisfied with that undertaking at that time. His second point was that the Member for Pembroke was very anxious at that time and his anxiety was shared by the Secretary of State for India—that Pembroke should be not merely a building dock, but also one for repairing purposes.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understood from the hon. Member that there was mention of Pembroke in this Bill, but there is nothing about Pembroke, and the hon. Member will not be in order, on the Third Reading, in suggesting that certain works ought to be carried out in relation to Pembroke.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, his point was this, that too much money was being spent on the southern ports, whereas the western and eastern ports
  430
  were left without protection. £9,000,000 out of £14,000,000 were proposed to be expended on the southern ports, and his contention was that that constituted a very great objection to the Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That was not the hon. Member's argument. As I understand, the hon. Member was proceeding to speak of the omission of certain works he would like to have seen done at Pembroke Harbour. That he cannot go into. He can refer to Pembroke in general argument, but he cannot go into the merits of Pembroke Harbour as a station.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid, his only reason for suggesting Pembroke was that it was the only harbour which for a small expenditure of money, could be strengthened and made available, not merely for building, but also for repairing purposes. It constituted a grave danger that they had no repairing dockyard on the west coast. The only provision for the purpose of repairing vessels, supposing a naval engagement in the Irish sea or anywhere on the western coasts, was at Keyham, and Dover and Portsmouth, and there was no port to which there could be easy access on the western coast. That constituted, from the naval point of view, a very great danger—a danger which could be easily remedied without such an extravagant expenditure as was proposed to he made on the ports of the south. For an expenditure of £200,000 or £300,000 upon a single dock on the west coast —say Pembroke—the Government could construct a far better repairing harbour than they could possibly hope to get at Keyham.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISjoined in the protest against this enormous expenditure. They had no guarantee where the end would come, or when the end would be reached. Some rather ominous words fell from the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, speaking of Dover, said that the Estimate would probably be exceeded. He thought it was just as well the country should know what would be required to be spent on Dover ultimately. He should imagine that the expenditure could not be limited to £2,000,000, but might extend to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 ultimately if anything effective was to be done at Dover. The gravest doubts

  431
  had been expressed in the House with regard to the propriety of any expenditure upon Dover, and he thought some idea ought to be given to the House of what the ultimate limit of that expenditure would be. Before proceeding further, he should be obliged if the Speaker would kindly inform him whether he should be in order in discussing the object of an Amendment he moved in Committee, and on which he took a Division.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think that would be quite out of place on the Third Reading of this Bill. The Amendment referred, as I understand, to a particular port, and was not carried, and it would be quite out of order to go into these details.
  MR. H. LEWISsaid, that under those circumstances, he would only draw the attention of the House to the fact that they were contemplating an enormous expenditure upon the southern ports, that that expenditure would in all probability be very largely exceeded, and that, whereas the expenditure was about to be made upon ports in regard to which the gravest doubts had been expressed, there were other ports as to which no doubt whatever had been expressed, and upon which no works of a permanent character were to be erected under this Bill. In urging that there should be a greater expenditure on the western coasts for the protection of the commerce of the Clyde, the Mersey, and the Bristol Channel, he did so solely upon grounds of national and naval policy, and upon strategic grounds.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's had asserted that Ireland had as much interest as any other part of the Empire in this naval expenditure. In the first place, the whole of the Empire was not being asked to pay its share of the expenditure. They did not dare to ask Canada, or New Zealand, or Australia to pay their share. They were proposing to build docks at Hong Kong, and works at Gibraltar, which were at least as much for the advantage of New Zealand and Australia as they were for Ireland, to put the case on a very low ground, but they did not dare to ask anything towards those expensive works from the other parts of the Empire. As a matter
  432
  of fact, Ireland was not as much interested in this expenditure as other parts of the Empire, and it was a mere playing with words to say that it was. What interest had Ireland in England retaining the command of the sea? Ireland lived on the produce of Ireland, and sent a good deal of it to England and Wales. [''Hear, hear!"] Ireland could manage to get on fairly well even if there were a few foreign ships about. There could be no fair comparison between the circumstances of Ireland, a self-supporting agricultural country, and the circumstances of Great Britain, a manufacturing country, living on food obtained from abroad, and sending manufactured articles abroad. He therefore protested against the theory that Ireland was as much concerned as Great Britain in this naval expenditure. If Great Britain were going to double or treble her naval expenditure every decade she must come to some terms by which Ireland, who was not interested, should not contribute to the increased outlay. Ireland must be put in the same position as other parts of the Empire that we did not dare to ask to contribute. The second objection was, that Ireland received no part of the actual expenditure. The First Lord had laid it down that the expenditure should be regulated mainly by strategic reasons; but he would probably admit also that some weight should be given to economic reasons, such as the obtaining of cheap and efficient labour. The south of England was not chosen by commercial men for the erection of great works. Of course, we could not surround our coasts with docks as France was doing, and we ought to be governed by business reasons. The Government had not chosen for shipbuilding purposes the same places that business men had chosen—Belfast, the north-east of England, and the Clyde; but they had kept to the south coast, where there was not a single shipbuilding yard set up by private enterprise. The setting up of works at Gibraltar might, perhaps, be defensible on strategic grounds, and at Hong Kong because cheap labour was obtainable there; indeed, Messrs. Armstrong were going to start a shipbuilding yard in Japan; but was there a Government shipbuilding yard in this country the location of which could be

  433
  defended on commercial principles? In their policy the Government were more anti-Irish than commercial. The port of Derry was eminently suitable for shipbuilding, and cheap labour was to be had there. All our defensive expenditure was being lavished on the south coast. Captain Mahan, in his book on the Sea Power of Europe, showed that even if England beat an enemy and maintained command of the sea, her commerce would still be subject to the operations of the privateers of other Powers. No feature, of that book was more interesting than that in which the author pointed out that, after the battle of Trafalgar, the loss to British commerce was enormous, because privateers were sent out by France. Assuming that England could keep command of the sea, still we should find it impossible to maintain our commerce as in time of peace through the English Channel, and much of it would be forced to go by the north of Ireland and the north of Scotland. If a war was to happen, where would the protection of our commerce be under the present scheme of naval defence? Belfast, Derry, and the Clyde were, for economic reasons, suited for dockyards, and places to which a large part of our commerce could go; but we spent no money on these places. If Derry and Belfast were not Irish we should be spending money there. For these reasons, he joined in protesting against the Bill, against enormous outlay which was not for the benefit of Ireland, and which was carefully distributed to do her as little good as possible.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes, 27.—(Division List, No. 83.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

  TREATY ENGAGEMENTS (OTTOMAN EMPIRE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Civil Service Estimates.)
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved:—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words 'It is the duty of Her Majesty's advisers to take such steps as may he required to fulfil Her Majesty's treaty engagements relative to the Ottoman Empire, entered into for the security of Her Majesty'). Oriental possessions.'"
  He said that no doubt there was implied in his Motion the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government had not adhered to their treaty engagements, and that suggestion he thought he would be able to make good. No doubt also there was implied the suggestion that the Government should amend their ways in the future, and should more strictly observe engagements entered into by Her Majesty the Queen. That also he thought he would be able to make good; but, having made those two points, he could scarcely conceive how any Government could resist his Amendment. That Amendment dealt with the treaty engagements relative to the Ottoman Empire. By Article 7 of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, the six Great Powers of Europe engaged to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Turkish Empire; while, by Article 9 it was stipulated that there was no right of interference, whether collectively or individually, in any one of those Powers with regard to relations of the Sultan with his people. By the Tripartite Treaty (1856), England, France and Austria guaranteed jointly the independence and the integrity of Turkey, and undertook to regard any infraction of the Treaty of Paris as a casus belli. The denunciation by Russia of that part of the Treaty of 1856 which related to the Black Sea led to the Conference of London of 1871, at which it was agreed that:—
  "It is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement "
  Then came the Treaty of Berlin. By Article 9 of that Treaty, England and the Powers of Europe engaged that Bulgaria should pay tribute to the Porte, and that Bulgaria should assume a portion of the debt of the Porte. By

  435
  Article 11 the Powers of Europe, England amongst them, agreed that Bulgarian fortresses should be razed within a year; by Articles 33 and 42, that Montenegro and Servia should assume their share of the Turkish debt; and by Article 59, that the port of Batoum should be a free commercial port; and, finally, under the Cyprus Convention, 1878, England engaged to join with the Sultan in defending the territory of Turkey in Asia Minor by force of arms against Russia. Every one of these conditions was binding on the Government of this country at the present moment. What were they? First, they had guaranteed the independence and the integrity of Turkey; yet the whole of their recent policy with regard to Turkey was an attack upon her independence and a threat as to her integrity. They had undertaken not themselves to interfere nor to permit interference with Turkey. Yet they had interfered, and for that credit had been claimed. As to the Danubian fortresses, when he asked about them he was informed by the Minister that he did not know whether they were razed or not, but that if they had not been razed, then he presumed they had fallen into decay. They had engaged that tribute should be paid by Bulgaria and a share of the debt should be assumed by Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro; yet not one penny had been contributed of tribute or one penny assumed of debt by either one of them. Then as to Batoum, it was the conditions as to that port which reconciled England to the concessions made to Russia. It would be in the recollection of many Members of that House that in 1886 Russia suddenly announced that she no longer intended to be bound by this Article in the Treaty of Berlin. She said that the conditions had changed, and that she intended to abrogate that particular portion of the Treaty which referred to the maintenance of Batoum as a free commercial port. Lord Rosebery wrote 13th July 1886:—
  "In the first place, it must be understood that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the view that this step on the part of Russia does not constitute an infraction of the Treaty of Berlin."
  He added:—
  "One direct, supreme, and perpetual interest, however, is no doubt at stake in this transaction
  436
  —that of the binding force and sanctity of International engagements. Great Britain is ready at all times, and in all seasons, to uphold that principle, and she cannot palter with it in the present instance. Her Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, consent to recognise or associate themselves in any shape or form with this proceeding of the Russian Government. They are compelled to place on record their view that it constitutes a violation of the Treaty of Berlin unsanctioned by the signatory Powers; that it tends to make future conventions of the kind difficult, if not impossible, and to cast doubt, at least, on those already concluded."
  He could not conceive plainer or more proper language with regard to the highhanded action of Russia in throwing over the engagement. But the protest of Lord Rosebery ended with that language. Under the Cyprus Convention they undertook to defend Turkish territory in Asia by force of arms, and here he might express his astonishment at the way in which the Convention was thrown over by the First Lord of the Admiralty, whom he regretted not to see in his place. He asked the First Lord whether he had stated that they were free from any engagement as to the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, and on the 13th of February he replied that, speaking of the Cyprus Convention, he expressed his belief, which he held, that the Sultan, not having carried out the reforms promised, we were relieved of any responsibility as to defending the Sultan's dominions in Asia Minor. Here was a declaration from one Minister, and the responsibility of one was the responsibility of all. If the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke simply his private opinion about the Cyprus Convention, he might pass it by without comment; but the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the First Lord of the Admiralty, spoke as the mouthpiece of Her Majesty's Government, and until they repudiated his declaration the whole Government were bound by it. ["Hear, hear!"] That was in accordance with a strict and fully recognised constitutional principle. The right hon. Gentleman had said that we were not bound to fulfil the engagement under the Convention. He contended that we were. The suggestion was that our engagement to protect the Asiatic dominions of Turkey from Russia by force of arms was conditional—the condition being the Sultan's promise, to introduce certain reforms to be agreed upon between

  437
  the two Powers. Hence the engagement was said to be conditional. Yes, but the condition itself was conditional. The condition did not arise until the agreement was come to between the two Powers as to the kind of reforms to be introduced. So true was this that Lord Salisbury in forwarding this Convention explained that it was purposely avoided making any definite arrangements as to the reforms, inasmuch as time was required to consider them, and that time had not been given. The essence of the promise of the reforms lay in the fact that an agreement was to be come to between Turkey and England as to what the reforms were to be in their nature and character. Until such an agreement had been come to, therefore, the promise of the Sultan was inoperative. ["Hear, hear!"] The Sultan was not bound to carry out any reforms not agreed to by England. Articles 9, 33 and 41 of the Berlin Treaty had avowedly not been executed by us, and the reason given was because the Powers had been unable to agree as to the exact amounts of the debt to be apportioned. Because of that failure to come to an agreement it was impossible to carry out the articles. He applied the same argument, or the same treatment, to the Cyprus Convention. But he denied altogether that our engagement to protect Asia Minor from Russia by force of arms was really conditional on the introduction of reforms by the Sultan. The reforms were not the consideration for which England undertook the engagement, for the keeping of which he was now pleading. The consideration was not the benefit of Turkey, nor for the security and good government of the Armenians; it was the interests of the Oriental possessions of Her Majesty and the safety of India. This was shown to be the case by the Circular of Lord Salisbury to Her Majesty's Embassies, dated the 1st of April 1878, in which, speaking of the Government of Constantinople, he said:—
  "The formal jurisdiction of that Government extends over geographical positions which must, under all circumstances, be of the deepest interest to Great Britain. It is in the power of the Ottoman Government to close or to open the straits which form the natural highway of nations between the Ægean Sea and the Euxine. Its dominion is recognised at the head of the Persian Gulf, on the shores of the Levant, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Suez
  438
  Canal. It cannot be otherwise than a matter of extreme solicitude to this country that the Government to which this jurisdiction belongs should be so closely pressed by the political outposts of a greatly-superior Power, that its independent action, and even existence, is almost impossible."
  The object, therefore, was to avoid the pressure by a great Power on the Turkish Government, which had so large a dominion over countries in which England was interested. In the course of the negotiations which preceded the final settlement of the Treaty of Berlin, Lord Salisbury again expressed his views, and again it was made apparent that it was not for the benefit of Turkey that we agreed to safeguard Asia Minor, but still for the interest of India. Lord Salisbury wrote:—
  "The progress of the confidential negotiations which have for some time past been in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia make it probable that those Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano which concern European Turkey, will be sufficiently modified to bring them into harmony with the interests of the other European Powers, and of England in particular. There is, however, no such prospect with respect to that portion of the Treaty which concerns Turkey in Asia. It is sufficiently manifest that, in respect to Batoum and the fortresses north of the Araxes, the Government of Russia is not prepared to recede from the stipulations to which the Porte has been led by the events of the war to consent. Her Majesty's Government have consequently been forced to consider the effect which these agreements, if they are neither annulled nor counteracted, will have upon the future of the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire and upon the interests of England, which are closely affected by the condition of those provinces. …"
  Lord Salisbury, again writing to Sir Henry Layard on May 30th, 1878, said:—
  "Even if it be certain that Batoum and Ardahan and Kars will not become the base from which emissaries of intrigue will issue forth, to be in due time followed by invading armies, the mere retention of them by Russia will exercise a powerful influence in disintegrating the Asiatic dominion of the Porte. As a monument of feeble defence on the one side and successful aggression on the other, they will be regarded by the Asiatic population as foreboding the course of political history in the immediate future, and will stimulate, by the combined action of hope and fear, devotion to the Power which is in the ascendant, and desertion of the Power which is thought to be falling into decay. It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept, without making an effort to avert it, the effect which such a state of feeling would produce upon regions whose political condition deeply concerns the Oriental interests of Great Britain."

  439
  Then he said that the only means by which Great Britain could avert the moral and material effect of the retention of these conquests by Russia was the completion of such an undertaking as the Cyprus Convention. He set forth in so many words the only thing that could save the provinces of Turkey, which, in the interests of England and India, ought to be protected. [Cries of "No!"] He was quoting Lord Salisbury. Hon. Members might deny their Leader if they pleased. They might say he had changed his opinion. He himself knew nothing of any such change. The solemn, serious, well-considered Dispatches in which he defended his conduct at the Congress of Berlin were good enough for him. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] It was not in the interests of Turkey or Armenia that the Cyprus Convention was concluded. In was concluded, Lord Salisbury said, in the sole interests of England and for the defence of the Oriental interests of Great Britain. ["Oh, oh!"] It was easy to say "Oh!" If any hon. Member could refute Lord Salisbury well and good. If we had entered into engagements it became us to keep them. How was it the Oriental interests of England were involved? He would quote a Dispatch by Sir Henry Layard of 30th May, 1877, who held the same opinion as Lord Salisbury that upon the safety of the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan very largely depended the safety of our Empire in India:—
  "As regards the acquisition (by Russia) of territory in Asia Minor, the interests of England would be alone concerned. It would probably signify little to the rest of Europe whether Russia retained Armenia or not. But England has to consider the effect of annexation to Russia of this important province upon the British possessions in India. Russia would then command the whole valley of the Euphrates and Tigris, which would inevitably fall into her hands in the course of time. Persia, moreover, would be placed entirely at her mercy. The possession of the entire coast of the Caspian Sea, and the direct road through a rich and well-inhabited country to Herat and Afghanistan, and ultimately to India, is a matter of vast political importance to Russia.

  "It must not be forgotten that the possession of Armenia by Russia as regards any designs she may have upon India would be very different from that of any part of Turkestan or Central Asia. In Armenia and the north of Persia she would have a hardy and abundant population, affording her excellent materials for a large army, ready at any time to advance upon our Indian frontier, and resting upon a convenient
  440
  and sure base of operations in direct communication by the Caspian Sea and by Batoum, with the heart of the Russian Empire.
  "The moral effect of the conquest of Armenia upon our Mohammedan fellow-subjects, and upon the population of Central Asia, cannot be overlooked by a statesman who attaches any value to the retention of India as part of the British Empire."
  He thought he had shown—if extracts and the considered opinions of Statesmen were of any value whatever—that the Cyprus Convention was made for the sole purpose as every other Convention with regard to Turkey had been—for the sole purpose not of assisting Turkey or showing any great affection for Turkey but of safeguarding the interests of England and the security of the Oriental Empire of Great Britain. If this were so, surely it behoved the Government to adhere to the engagement undertaken. India had always been the prize of Empire and subject to the attack of aggressive conquerors from Mahmoud of Ghuzni to Nadir Shah. It had been exposed to invasion after invasion, and not until the occupation of the English had it begun to enjoy anything like comparative peace. He did not know whether it would be held by any Member of the House that the Oriental interests of England were in less danger than ever they were or that they were less in importance than ever they were. To his mind they were more in importance and in greater danger. The various outworks by which 50 or 60 years ago they were defended had disappeared, and at that moment Russia, which a few years ago was 1000 miles from the frontiers of India was within striking distance of Herat. If so engagements entered into for the protection of British India and the Oriental interests of India were of not less but greater importance than ever, and it depended on the attitude of England now what the attitude of India and of Asia might be in the future. India was hesitating, Asia was doubtful, not because they had any doubt of our power, but because they doubted our will, our courage and honesty. It was by this test they would try us. By testing our fidelity to the engagements we had undertaken would they try and deal with us in the future. The question was whether we were to be true to our engagements or false to them. He called upon the Government to declare whether

  441
  they meant to stand by their engagements or repudiate them. If the Government told him they would adopt the language of Lord Rosebery and practically carry out the principles he set forth in his Dispatch of 1886, then he should be content, and only too glad to withdraw his Amendment, but if he heard repeated what was stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty that the solemn engagements we had entered into would be repudiated, it would be his duty to go to a Division on his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he rose to Second the Amendment, although he had on the Paper an Amendment of a larger scope; but, as they were doing the work of three or four nights in one, he would not go fully into the subject. The speech just delivered would be appreciated, but as he listened to it he wondered whether it would occur to the hon. Member to mention the future of our relations with the Turkish Empire, which depended so much upon our diplomatic relations with it. Her Majesty's Government laboured under great disadvantage in not having at Constantinople an Ambassador who could lay their views before the Porte with any prospect of those views being impartially considered. He did not desire to make any personal remarks upon the Ambassador, whose acquaintance he enjoyed, but the relations between the Sultan and the Ambassador were not such as to give a fair chance of British influence being exercised. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in a loyal defence of the Ambassador, appeared to lay down an unconstitutional doctrine when he protested against attacks upon the Ambassador because he had no opportunity of exculpation or defence; but that doctrine would exclude any criticism or control by the House of any public functionary, and was wholly subversive of Parliamentary government. The Ambassador, who did not lack an extremely able defender, was charged with delicate and difficult duties, but they were performed in a manner which rendered success practically impossible. The wildest rumours, afterwards proved to be gross exaggerations, were telegraphed under the instructions of the
  442
  Ambassador to Her Majesty's Government. In the case of the earlier massacres, investigation showed wildly exaggerated rumours had been sent; and it remained to be seen whether the same would hold good of the later massacres. The Under Secretary skilfully mixed up different series of so-called atrocities and dealt with them as an indivisible whole, and that was most unfair. At Sasun it was said that 8,000 persons had been killed; but upon official inquiry the number fell to 265, which was the number adopted in the joint Report of the Consuls of Russia, France, and England. Then, when the Consuls had separated, one of the Vice-Consuls set to work to try to bring up the numbers more to the expectations of the Ambassador, and he arrived at the figure of 900, very much in the same way that a lazy canvasser, having canvassed one street, and ascertained the proportions of voters for and against his candidate, filled up other streets on the same pro- portions, sent in his books, and went off to enjoy himself. The reason why he mentioned these facts was because they showed a distinct bias on the part of the officials connected with the Embassy, and he feared, also, a bias on the part of the Ambassador himself. Indeed, the Ambassador had shown himself so much biassed, not only in regard to the Turkish Government, but in regard to the Sultan himself, that no useful object was to be served by continuing him at his post. The Duke of Westminster, speaking at Chester, and reported in The Times on 27th January last, said:—
  "We hear every day of accumulated horrors being committed by that demon in human shape, | the Sultan of Turkey,"
  and he added:—
  "I was told by Sir Philip Currie the other day, that the Turkish Ministers were mere cyphers in the Sultan's hands, that nothing was done without him, and that he was responsible for the horrors."
  ["Hear, hear!"] That amounted to an accusation by Her Majesty's Ambassador of wilful murder against the Sultan of Turkey. [''Hear, hear!"] He did not think the Sultan would receive in a very kindly spirit suggestions made to him on behalf of a friendly Power by a

  443
  person who had accused him not only of isolated acts of homicide, but of a series of deliberate wilful murders carried out over a long period of time. Therefore, if the Government intended to resume our long-standing influence at Constantinople, which they and their predecessors had so recklessly thrown away, they would do well to approach the Turkish Government through some other channel than that at present in existence at Constantinople. He doubted if there was any other Government in the world who would not have immediately presented passports to an Ambassador who had used language of that kind against the Sovereign to whom he was accredited. He was bound to make one defence of our Ambassador at Constantinople which was not mentioned in the recent speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That was that Sir Philip Currie had been promoted to his present position without having undergone that training which would have enabled him to steer clear of the things he had committed. That was not the fault of Sir Philip Currie, but the Party opposite who had appointed him Ambassador should have borne it in mind. He could not conceive any duties of life less like to result in the production of a diplomat than the work of an ordinary Government office, which had been the training of our Constantinople Ambassador. The Sultan was not merely the temporary Sovereign, but the religious head of his people—he was not only the Sultan of Turkey, but the head of the Mahommedan world, and when that fact was remembered, it would become manifest that an Ambassador who had identified himself with violent attacks on the Sultan in his personal capacity was impossible at Constantinople. He desired to say, in conclusion, a few words on the general position of affairs in Turkey. This country had undoubtedly in the past exercised vast influence in Turkey. The great Statesmen who had maintained these intimate relations with Turkey had been by no means supporters of the system of Government which prevailed in that country. Could it be said that Lord Palmerston or Mr. Disraeli had supported Turkish Government? Not at all. Everyone knew that these Statesmen supported the supremacy of
  444
  the Ottoman Empire, not because they approved its system of Government, but because they had arrived at the conclusion that the maintenance of the status quo in Turkey was to the interest of England. Therefore, those who now desired the resumption of reasonable relations with the Turkish Empire did not thereby identify themselves with the excesses, or even with the ordinary courses, of the Government of that country. He hoped the Government would do their utmost to bring about those cordial relations with the head of the Mohammedan world, which had so long been held to be essential to our interests, not only in Europe, but in other parts of the world. It had been said that we could enjoy a "splendid isolation," and hold ourselves aloof from other Powers. But he ventured to think that during the last few months we had run a great risk of losing our character as shrewd, practical, hard-headed, common-sense people.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,)said, he could not help thinking that the good-humoured, but, as he thought, mistaken, speech of his right hon. Friend was a speech which he must have prepared, but lost the opportunity of delivering, at an earlier period of the Session. It was much more pertinent to the discussion of Turkish affairs than to any particular subject at that moment before the House. He did not suspect his right hon. Friend, in the remarks which he had made about Constantinople, of any personal feeling, but his right hon. Friend protested on public and larger grounds against the doctrine which he had laid down earlier in the Session—namely, that it was unusual and unfair to attack one of Her Majesty's Representatives abroad in the House, where, by the necessary conditions of the case, that Representative had not the opportunity of defence or reply. That doctrine was the normal and necessary doctrine of the Government; and he would amplify it by the statement of what he believed to be the constitutional and proper position—that, if any Member of the House of Commons wished to make an attack against any of Her Majesty's Ambassadors or Ministers

  445
  abroad for any lapse of duty, that attack ought to be brought against the Government whom that Ambassador or Minister represented and by whom he was accredited. [''Hear, hear!"] Therefore, the attack of the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been made against the occupants of the Treasury Bench, who, his right hon. Friend would find, were quite ready to meet it. Since he had been at Constantinople, Sir Philip Currie had acted as the diligent and faithful exponent of the views of successive Governments — [cheers] — of the Party opposite and of those who now occupied the Ministerial Bench. He was sure that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would take the full responsibility for everything that Sir Philip Currie did in their time; and the present Government equally claimed full accountability for what he had done in their time. [Cheers.] What were the particular charges brought against Sir Philip Currie? The first was that he had eagerly telegraphed to the Government rumours with little regard to whether they had any foundation, or not; that he palmed them off on the Government as facts and lent a ready ear to any reports which fitted in with his own preconceived notions about Armenian atrocities and Turkish government. That Sir Philip Currie telegraphed to the Government these rumours and reports was perfectly true; it was his duty to do so. [Cheers,] He transmitted to Her Majesty's Government the news he received from our Consuls and representatives in Asia Minor; and they, writing in many instances at some distance from the scene of action and the spot where these lamentable events occurred, could only, in the first place, transmit what was in the nature of rumour. ["Hear, hear!"] These Reports were naturally passed on to Her Majesty's Government, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to say that Sir P. Currie had lent a ready ear to what suited his prepossessions. He defied his right hon. Friend, if he read the correspondence through, to detect any sign of prepossession on Sir P. Currie's part in one direction or the other [''Hear, hear!" and an HON. MEMBER: "It is full of them."] He should have thought that if any British
  446
  Ambassador had ever gone out to Constantinople who might have been suspected of prepossessions contrary to those which were now unjustly charged against Sir P. Currie, it was Sir P. Currie himself. [''Hear, hear!'' and ironical laughter.] He failed to find in anything which Sir P. Currie had written or done any evidence whatever of prejudice or prepossession. ["Hear, hear!"] He was surprised that his right hon. Friend had once again brought up that exploded story about the Sasun massacres and the number of victims. Once before during the Session he had called the attention of the House to this story, and, as he thought, had succeeded in shattering the particular version of those events given by one of his hon. Friends below the Gangway. And yet again his right hon. Friend had charged Sir P. Currie and the Vice-Consul with having tried to bring the number of 265 up to a larger total. The number 265 was the number of persons who were reported before the Commission to have been killed—a Commission which only took a certain amount of evidence from certain districts, and exerted every possible pressure to prevent witnesses from coming forward. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "No!"] The Vice-Consul signed his Report in common with his colleagues, and from inquiries which he himself made he put the number of killed at 900 as being nearer the truth. If his own personal opinion were asked he should say that 900 was under the mark. [''What do you know about it?" from Mr. GIBSON BOWLES.] At any rate, he knew quite as much about it as his hon. Friend. [Laughter and cheers.] His right hon. Friend had commented on the fact that the Vice-Consul wrote a postscript to I the Report in which he revised his judgment. The Vice-Consul was instructed to write that postscript before he went out. He and his colleagues were enjoined not only to write a joint Report, but to accompany it with individual reports. [Cheers and an HON. MEMBER: "The postscript was three months later."] That was because the Vice-Consul took time to consider his statements, which the hon. Gentleman had not done. [Laughter and cheers.] The value of the Vice-Consul's Report

  447
  could not possibly be defied. The only other point made by his right hon. Friend was that Sir P. Currie had indulged in violent personal attacks on the Sultan. Well, it was his duty to go through the Blue-books, and he must say that, as far as he knew, there was nothing to give any colour at all to the belief that Sir P. Currie had been guilty of any discourtesy whatever to the Sultan. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he believed he should carry the majority of the House with him when he said that the discussion on which the hon. Member invited the House to embark was an academic and superfluous discussion. ['' Hear, hear! "] When he first saw the hon. Member's Motion on the Paper, he confessed he did not quite know whether the attitude he was taking up with reference to the Government was one of praise or blame. Considering, however, that the Government rarely took any step that met with the approbation of his hon. Friend, he might almost have known in advance that his views on the present occasion would be those of criticism rather than of approval. His hon. Friend seemed to take particular pleasure in proving that all Governments, and Her Majesty's present Advisers in particular, were always breaking Treaties. He had constituted himself a sort of self-accredited custodian of all the Treaties of Europe; and when Russia broke a Treaty, or England broke a Treaty, or anybody else, down came his hon. Friend and fulminated against the Ministerial Bench, and tried to fix upon them the responsibility. Happily, he was in the position of knowing what his hon. Friend was going to say, because he said it all once before in this House. [Laughter.] He made the same speech in August of last year. He believed that, besides his hon. Friend, he was the only person in the House at the time. [Laughter.] Anyhow, it had remained in his recollection ever since, and before coming down he had refreshed his memory and prepared replies to meet his hon. Friend. That might account for any facility he might have in meeting his points.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could quote a single sentence in his speech which was a repetition of his speech of August last.
  MR. CURZONsaid, he could quote many sentences, and he could also quote what was more pertinent — namely, several notable discrepancies between the two speeches. [Laughter.] The first Treaty to which he referred was the Treaty of Paris of 1856, and he remarked that by every subsequent Treaty the clauses of that Treaty had been re-enacted.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No.
  MR. CURZON: If the hon. Member corrected himself of course there was nothing more to be said.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES,*MR. GIBSON BOWLES, interposing, declared that he would not be misrepresented even by a right hon. Gentleman of the ability and pretensions of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Order!"] He was perfectly in order. He said that the clauses of the Treaty which he quoted—those clauses, namely, which guaranteed the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, and which prohibited interference with its domestic affairs—were continued and saved by the subsequent Treaty.
  MR. CURZONwas afraid that was entirely consistent with the proposition he had just uttered. But the hon. Member was wrong. He found Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin said the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of London were reaffirmed—
  "in all such of their provisions as were not abrogated or modified by the preceding stipulations."
  What could be more clear than that certain clauses of the Treaty of Paris were abrogated, and certain others modified by the Treaty of Berlin, and that one clause so modified was the particular clause in the article quoted. His hon. Friend asked him to quote a single remark which appeared in last August's speech. Well, he made on that occasion two remarks about the tribute and about the fortresses which he had repeated this evening. He had never heard of those allegations before, and it was only in consequence of having read his previous speech that he had been able to provide himself with a reply. It was alleged that Bulgaria and Montenegro had not paid the stipulated tribute to the Porte.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I never

  449
  suggested that Servia and Montenegro were made liable to pay tribute by the Treaty, but that they were to pay their portion of the public debt in addition to which Bulgaria was to pay tribute.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that was exactly the same thing. The tribute was to be paid, there was to be payment of their portion of the debt. His hon. Friend sometimes called it tribute and sometimes their portion of the debt. [Laughter.] No doubt the hon. Gentleman was aware of the reason for which this stipulation was not carried out—inability on the part of the Powers to come to an agreement; but no special responsibility rested with England more than with any other Power. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the fortresses on the Danube which were to be razed by the Treaty, and which had not been razed. There was no necessity for razing them, because they had tumbled down of their own accord; and therefore, perhaps, they would not again figure in the next speech of his hon. Friend. [Laughter.] The next point made by the hon. Gentleman was with regard to the Cyprus Convention. He asked for the views of the Government about a statement made a few weeks ago by the First Lord of the Admiralty. What the First Lord of the Admiralty said on that occasion was perfectly true, and, so far from being repudiated, it was sustained and repeated by his colleagues. There was nothing in the Cyprus Convention compelling England to go to war with Turkey if the Sultan did not carry out its clauses. There was an undertaking in the Convention to defend the Asiatic Dominions of Turkey if an attack were delivered, and in return the Sultan was to carry out certain reforms. The Sultan had not performed his part of that engagement, and therefore the corresponding obligations on our part had lapsed. This was no new subject. That announcement was not made for the first time by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The same announcement was made as long ago as 1890 in the time of his predecessor the right hon. Member for East Manchester (Sir J. Fergusson) who was now present. The right hon. Baronet made the statement, which was eagerly accepted by the other side, that this part of the Cyprus Convention was now to be held as being in abeyance.
  450
  But, because a particular obligation to defend a particular part of the Sultan's dominions against a particular foe ceased to exist, it did not follow that the anterior obligations of a more general and less specialised character were affected. Our obligations to Turkey had been in some respects correctly stated by the hon. Member. They were obligations created by the Treaty of Paris of 1856, by the Special Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, and France of 1856, by the Treaty of London of 1871, and the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. The general character of those obligations was clear and explicit, and from none of them did Her Majesty's Government recede. His hon. Friend concluded his Motion by calling on the Advisers of Her Majesty to take such steps as might be required to fulfil those engagements. He had listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest to learn what those steps might be, but, having failed to receive enlightenment on the subject from the hon. Gentleman, he had only, on the part of the Government, having explained what the Treaty obligations of the Government with regard to Turkey were, to say that they had no other resource but to meet the Motion of the hon. Gentleman with a negative. [Cheers.]
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid, he had listened with some doubt as to the meaning of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman as to the views of the Government on the binding force of the Treaties with regard to Turkey. The purpose of the Motion of the hon. Member was to ascertain whether or not Her Majesty's Government considered themselves bound to defend Turkey by force of arms by virtue of the various Treaties that had been made. He thought that this was a very hardy Motion to make in the recent memory of the House as to the frightful massacres that had taken place in Armenia, for which the Government of Turkey were unquestionably responsible. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Cyprus Convention was one in which the promise to defend Asia Minor against Russia was contingent upon the performance by Turkey of the obligations in respect of Asia Minor and Armenia. He listened to that statement with great satisfaction; but when the right hon.

  451
  Gentleman proceeded to say that under prior Treaties, meaning notably the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, Great Britain was still bound to defend Turkey, he was left in doubt whether it really was the view of the Government that we were bound to defend the Turkish Empire notwithstanding that the Porte had not introduced the necessary reforms. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether, in view of the recent massacres—the truth of which he admitted—he thought this country was still under any obligation to defend Turkey against any foe that might advance against her? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that we were now absolved, under the Cyprus Convention, from any obligation to defend Asia Minor against Russia. But he also heard that we were not bound by the Treaty of Berlin or the Treaty of Paris to act individually in defence of the Turkish Empire. Where there was a collective obligation on the Powers of Europe, that obligation could not devolve on one of them unless the others agreed, and we were under no greater obligation under the Treaties to defend the Turkish Empire than any of the other signatory Powers. Even supposing that we were bound by the most explicit Treaty to take action, he could not think that we should be justified in lifting one finger to defend the vile system of Government that prevailed at present in Turkey. ["Hear, hear!"] One hundred years ago a great Statesman in that House spoke of Turkey as a hateful and disgusting Empire, and the same description applied to it still. It was a lamentable reflection that so much blood and treasure had been expended by this country in bolstering up the Turkish Empire. In 1854 promises of reform were made but they were never fulfilled. As in 1854, so again in 1878 this country, carrying out a policy which he deeply regretted, prevented Russia from putting an end to this foul and filthy misgovernment. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] Events had proved that policy to be a failure. Lord Salisbury, in a Dispatch referring to the Cyprus Convention, had written that the agreement then made would probably be the last chance of reforming that the Turkish Government would
  452
  have. Strong as the present Government was, they would never get the House of Commons to consent to give any assistance at all to the horrid Government of Turkey. In the massacre at Sasun and the subsequent massacres in October, November, and December, the representatives of the Great Powers estimated that 25,000 people were killed in cold blood, and many more were believed to have met with the same fate, but their cases could not be verified. Was it to be supposed that we were going to use any of our wealth and power for the purpose of supporting a cursed Government like that of Turkey? [Cheers.] Our policy had hitherto been altogether wrong. We had been endeavouring for 50 years to prevent Russia from overrunning a part of Turkey when it was her manifest destiny that she should go there. He was not an admirer of the Russian Government, and recognised that it had many faults, but it was infinitely superior to a massacring Government like the Turkish. ["Hear, hear!"] We had been endeavouring to bolster up the rotten Government of Turkey in our own interest. He was perfectly certain that the Statesman who initiated that policy never thought what the result of it would be. No Gentleman would come forward now that the supposed interests of India, and our supposed interests in the Mediterranean were to be supported at the price of 25,000 people being massacred in Armenia every 10 or 15 years. While he thought it was bold on the part of the hon. Member to bring forward this Motion, he was glad he had done so, and he hoped that other Members would express their horror at the prospect of a single penny of English money or a single drop of English blood being spent on behalf of this infamous Government.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONthought that a more mischievous or a more ill-advised Debate had never taken place. He was sure they all deplored the ill results of the efforts of this country over a long series of years not only to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire, but to guide that Empire into better courses with respect to its population; but it was quite another thing to argue that this country was bound to engage itself in all the risks of

  453
  war in order to fulfil its obligations under a Treaty, the counterpart of which had not been performed, and to forget the many disinterested and heroic acts performed by this country, and its efforts to maintain the peace of the world and the interests of the British Empire. His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn had utterly failed to maintain his proposition. His right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had fully shown that the Cyprus Convention was bilateral, and that the conditions precedent to that fulfilment of our obligations had not been performed. From the very first the House was assured by the responsible Ministers that that Treaty was a conditional one. It was absolutely stated by Minister's in 1878 that the obligations incurred by the Cyprus Convention were conditional; and particularly the representative of the Foreign Office at that time stated that if the corresponding condition was not fulfilled, our obligation was not binding on us. That could not be denied. It would be found in one shape or another in every speech of every Minister who took part in those early Debates. Therefore it was vain for his hon. Friend to contend that the obligation undertaken by this country under that Treaty was still binding. He thought it was most unfortunate that the efforts that were being made to save the Turkish Empire from the results of its own folly should he frustrated by such a Debate. What good object could be attained by it? And what good object could be attained by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite depreciating the efforts of this country in the past?
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg pardon. I only regretted that our attempts to get reforms in Turkey had been unsuccessful. I never depreciated the efforts of this country in the past.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, he fully accepted that assurance. The efforts of this country had been based on a great policy. Undoubtedly our position as a great Eastern Power largely, and perhaps primarily, actuated us; but that did not compel us to perform our obligations under either the Cyprus Convention or the Berlin Treaty if the corresponding obligations contained in them had not been fulfilled. It must be borne in mind that as a great Empire, we had
  454
  great responsibilities which could never allow us to become isolated from all the Great Powers of the world.
  *MR. J. BRYCEfelt bound to associate himself, as one of the Members of the late Government, which was responsible for the appointment of Sir Philip Currie, with what had been said by the Under Secretary in defence of that Ambassador. He thought the attack made upon him was very unjust, and that those who had followed the Dispatches would think that he acted with great earnestness and firmness, and few Englishmen placed in the same position would not have acted in the same spirit of humanity. ["Hear, hear!"] When Sir Philip Currie went to Constantinople he was by no means indisposed to regard the Turkish Government with favour, and it was nothing but his conviction of the incurable perversity and wickedness of the Sultan and his Government that altered his view. ["Hear, hear!"] Anybody reading the Dispatches would see that the alteration in Sir Philip's tone towards the Turkish Government was entirely due to the massacre of Sasun, to the proofs that he had of the complicity of the Turkish Government in it, to the dishonesty with which it was attempted to cover up the crimes committed there, to the abominable misconduct of the Turkish Commissioners who were conducting the so-called Inquiry, and to the impossibility he found of moving the Sultan to introduce any measures of reform or to inflict any punishment on those who had committed these crimes. ["Hear, hear!"] No one could have acted with more consistent honesty of purpose, or with a truer sense of what the honour and duty of England required, than Sir Philip Currie, and although his efforts had not, unfortunately, succeeded, from the want of support from other Powers, it had not been his fault. Of all those whose conduct had come before the judgment of that House, and would come before the judgment of posterity in connection with these calamitous events, no reproach could rest on the reputation of Sir Philip Currie. ["Hear, hear!"] As regarded the attempt that had been made to represent Sir Philip's statements as exaggerated, it would be found that the reports he forwarded regarding the massacres were substantially confirmed

  455
  in the report made by the six delegates of the six Powers acting together at Constantinople, and private information from authentic sources, which many of them had received, showed that the statements in the Blue-book were under rather than over the truth. With regard to the character of the Sultan himself there was a very significant statement which rested on the authority of the six Ambassadors at one of their conferences in November last, when, in a collective remonstrance addressed to the Sultan, they said that the Sultan, if sincere in his professions, could put a stop to the massacres. It was evidently the opinion of the Ambassadors that the massacres were carried on by the authority of the Sultan, and that the exertion of that authority would be sufficient to stop them. That went as far at least as any statement attributed to Sir Philip Currie. ["Hear, hear!"] The general question had been dealt with by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, and he had not a single sentence to add to the very vigorous language he had used—language with which (so far as it related to the character and conduct of the Turkish Government), he concurred and which he thought expressed the general sentiment of the people of this country who had been roused to indignation by the shocking record of crime they had read. [Cheers.] This was no time for talking of establishing cordial relations with a Sovereign who had put to death some 50,000 of his innocent subjects, many of whom might have saved their lives by renouncing Christianity. These victims had died martyrs to their faith, and thus had a double claim upon the sympathy of a Christian people. ["Hear, hear!"] Turkey had long since forfeited any right which any Treaty had given her, either to the sympathy or to the material support of this country. The policy of former years designed to maintain her had irretrievably failed. No British interest required this country to support the loathsome and cruel misgovernment whose character was so fully set forth in the recent Blue-books, and he heartily hoped that never again would any British Government come forward and ask this House to countenance or support any policy which could commit England to the defence or
  456
  maintenance of a detestable tyranny. [Cheers.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTfelt bound to protest against the outrageous language which had fallen from the ex-Attorney General, who, although he claimed to speak as a private Member, having held the position he had, spoke with more responsibility than did a private Member. His language was so unusual and so violent that he felt justified in protesting against it. It was language very rarely heard from the Front Bench, and it was language which might possibly cause the Party to which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman who endorsed it belonged, very serious and great embarrassment some day. The right hon. Gentleman said they had absolutely no interest in this matter— that it did not matter to us what the policy or the sentiments of the Ottoman Empire, its Government or its people were with regard to this country. Let him remind the House what might happen with regard to the action of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan might cause them the greatest embarrassment if he took an opposing line in regard to their movements into the Soudan. Supposing the Sultan allowed the Russian war ships in the Black Sea to enter the Mediterranean, if this country was in trouble with France? Supposing the Sultan, provoked to exasperation by the unjust and shameful charges which the right hon. Gentleman had made, preached a Mussulman crusade against them in India? What an effect that might have upon them if they were in any embarrassment or trouble with the Great Powers. These three points illustrated the recklessness and the folly with which these utterances were made. The assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Sultan had killed these 50,000 people was a scandal, and a charge which could not be proved by any official statement which had been made, or printed, or laid before the House. There was not a single word of proof in the Blue-books to show that the Sultan was in any way responsible for the massacres at Sasun. So far from that, the Sultan, immediately he heard of them, appointed a Commission to investigate them, and invited the delegates of the Great Powers to attend it and check the

  457
  inquiry. The Prime Minister himself acquitted the Sultan of personal responsibility. How glibly the right hon. Gentleman slid from the subject of the sham Sasun atrocities to those very real and terrible events which had occurred in Asia Minor during the past four months! There was an interval of 14, or 15 months between the alleged Sasun atrocities and the horrors which began in Asia Minor last October; and how was that interval occupied by Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their friends in the country? By covering the Sultan and his Government with every kind of unjust abuse and contumely, arousing in every possible way the passion of Mussulman fanaticism by their Christian fanaticism, and encouraging those unfortunate Armenians to proceed with their outbreaks and their conspiracy. The burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that they should encourage Russia to occupy those territories, and that a Russian Government would be so much better than a Turkish Government. What was his evidence of that? Was the hon. Gentleman ignorant of the way in which Russia had treated the nations she had conquered? What about the thousands and hundreds of thousands of Poles who had fallen under the Russian Government? What about the 500,000 people who were massacred and done to death during the Russian invasion of Turkey 18 years ago? For every Armenian that had recently suffered death or outrage a hundred Mussulmen suffered death or outrage during that fearful war of 1878. Was the hon. Gentleman ignorant of the way in which General Skobeleff mowed down 12,000 women only 21 years ago. The hon. Gentleman dissented, but was that an indication of ignorance or of disbelief?
  SRI R. REIDsaid, he thought that was one of numerous fables. He had said, and he thought, that the Russian Government, in past times particularly, had been very far from a good Government. In many ways it was a very bad Government, but he thought it a much better Government than the Turkish Government.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that was where he joined issue with the hon. Gentleman, and he was quite prepared to prove that the massacres and
  458
  outrages perpetrated by Russia were even worse than anything done by the Ottoman Government. He would beg the House to bear in mind that what underlay all this violent language by the Party opposite was a rooted injustice not only to the Turks but to the Mussulman faith. That had been the basis of the ferocious attacks which had been made on the Sultan, and, if it had not been the basis, it had been the form of them, and the effect must be injurious on their Mussulman subjects in India. He had no affection for the Mussulman religion, but he believed in justice to their Mussulman fellow-subjects. They had the right to have their religion treated with respect in that House, and the head of their faith, especially, treated with respect. That course had not been followed, and, instead, hon. Gentlemen opposite had persisted in using reckless language which might cause this country great trouble and, possibly, disaster.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that there was not a word in the Blue-books to prove that the Sultan was responsible for the massacres was refuted by the Dispatch of Sir Philip Currie of December 17th, in which he stated:—
  "That it is proved by eye-witnesses that the Turkish soldiers took an active part in the massacres in Erzeroum, Trebizond, and many other places, and the fact that foreign subjects and their houses were spared shows that the attacks were organized, and that orders must have been given to single out the Armenian subjects of the Sultan."
  There was abundant ground for saying, even on the authority of our own Consuls, that these massacres, in very many cases at least, had been organised and carried out by the local authorities in obedience to orders received from Constantinople. In fact, he did not believe there was a single intelligent person acquainted with the facts who did not believe that the massacres were committed at the instigation of the Sultan himself. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "No!"] A proof of it was that in every case the men who had acted most infamously in these horrors had been decorated by the Sultan, and there was no case known in which an author or director, of the massacres had been punished in any way. ["Hear, hear!"]

  459
  He appealed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to corroborate what he said. He challenged the Government to deny that much information in regard to these horrors had been kept back from the public because the facts were often too horrible and detestable to publish. It was a disgrace to civilisation that these horrors were still being perpetrated over a large part of Asia Minor; and surely some active steps should be taken to stop them. He regretted that one or two hon. Members opposite had sought rather to minimise the massacres, but trustworthy information proved over and over again that their extent and cruelty had really been understated. He had before him the testimony of a well-known Englishman who had been three years in the country, and in the very midst of the massacres, and his evidence justified all that had been said as to the massacres. He believed that more than 50,000 Armenians had been killed, and that at least 50,000 more had perished from exposure and starvation. Was not this a disgrace to civilisation? He was glad to hear the noble words which had been spoken on the matter from the Front Opposition Bench that night. He believed they echoed the feelings of the vast majority of the English people, and that they would, therefore, give great satisfaction. [''Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. W. LEGHsaid, that while the hon. Member for Aberdeen congratulated the House and the country on the fact that we were able to repudiate any responsibility for the Turkish Empire in consequence of what he called the detestable conduct of Turkey, he hoped, at the same time, he would repudiate any special responsibility on our part to interfere in the internal affairs of that country. [''Hear, hear!"] In spite of what the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said, he did not think Sir Philip Currie could fairly be acquitted of a certain amount of injudiciousness. The letter which he wrote to the Duke of Westminster, and which had been quoted, was not altogether discreet, and might have led to trouble. He had always understood his hon. Friends entertained sound views on this question, and therefore he was entirely at a loss to understand their action to-night. What benefit did they expect to get by making this Motion?
  460
  Who was going to break a Treaty, and what need was there to impress on the Government the necessity of carrying out our obligations? His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn dwelt upon the necessity of what he called vindicating our good faith with regard to the Cyprus Convention. What proof was there of ill faith on our part? We occupied Cyprus for military purposes, and we paid a handsome rent for the privilege of doing so, and we did so still. Did Austria pay for the privilege of occupying Bosnia and Herzegovina? Did the French pay for the privilege of occupying Tunis. The First Lord of the Admiralty interpreted the Cyprus Convention very differently to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and he much preferred the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman. The First Lord's view was, he was sure, held by 999 out of every 1,000 people. He failed to see what useful purpose would be served by raising this question, and if the hon. Member for King's Lynn were well advised he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid that he agreed with the hon. Member for Newton as to the uselessness of this discussion, and yet he felt constrained to add a word or two with respect to one point. He was glad to hear the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs state so clearly what had been already stated by a higher authority in the Government—namely, that our obligation under the Cyprus Convention had practically ceased. That was the only obligation under which we had ever been towards Turkey itself. Under that Convention we did undoubtedly undertake to, under certain conditions, defend Turkey in Asia against Russian aggression. Turkey had not performed her part of that bargain, and, therefore, we were freed from our part. Under the Treaty of Paris we entered into engagements with other European Powers, but not with Turkey itself. He was not much concerned now with the Treaty of Paris, but he rose to say a word about the Tripartite Treaty which was agreed upon immediately after the Treaty of Paris between this country, France and Austria. To his surprise the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke of that Treaty as still valid and

  461
  subsisting. It was necessary to repudiate that at once. That was a Treaty of a very onerous character indeed, entered into by us with Austria and with France, under which each Power was bound on the requisition of either Power to join it in defence of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire a most stringent and terrible obligation. They had lived 40 years since then. The Government communicated with France and Austria that they would no longer be bound, under the altered circumstances of the day, by that Treaty. Lord Derby then said there was not the remotest chance of their ever being called upon by France or Austria to co-operate under the Treaty. They knew soon afterwards Russia was attacked by Turkey. The Treaty was now of no value, and he thought it necessary to rise to offer these few words as a protest against the unguarded observations of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  *MR. EDWARDMOONsaid, the operative part of the Article relating to Armenia in the Treaty of San Stefano was reproduced verbatim in Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin. Article 61 further provided that the Powers should supervise the execution of the guarantees given by Turkey in the first part of the article. The portion of Asia Minor which was covered by the Treaty of San Stefano did not affect the district which bad been the scene of recent lamentable occurrences; he therefore thought that it was unjust for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that Armenia would be is a better position to day if they had not prevented Russia having her way. They did modify the Treaty of San Stefano so far as it applied to Turkey in Europe, but, so far an it applied to Turkey in Asia, the modification practically made no difference at all.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsuggested that the discussion should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. Such an abstract discussion in connection with our duty in Eastern Europe might well be left to another occasion. It had been discussed more than once in the present Session.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, there were still three or four Motions to be discussed on this particular question, one of which would require an hour's discussion, and another two hours. After that the Report of Supply must be taken, and that would be the only opportunity they would have of raising two or three questions of considerable importance. He appealed, therefore to the, First Lord of the Treasury to allow this discussion to be adjourned in order that the Report of Supply might be taken.
  MR. LOUGHsupported the appeal of his hon. Friend. They were in this position, that they would have to pass about six hours' Debate on the Report of Supply when they got to it. The suggestion was made in a conciliatory spirit.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he had already stated the position in which they stood. It must be remembered that new the House had an opportunity of discussing Supply very week. If hon. Gentlemen had taken the advice he gave in a spirit of conciliation at 4 o'clock that afternoon, they would have been spared three hours of perfectly unnecessary Debate. He was afraid he could not accept the suggestion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to hear that eight out of the 11 hon. Members who had spoken were supporters of the Government. There were several matters which were ready for discussion. He understood that an hon. Member front Wales had a very important subject which he wished to bring forward, and, after that had been disposed of, an hon. Member from Ireland had a subject of equal interest, which he desired should be discussed. He himself had an Amendment upon the Paper, and after that the hon. Member from Wales had got another subject—an altogether new subject—quite a different subject —which he proposed should be debated. He quite sympathised with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to get through the business of the House as rapidly as possible; but there was no earthly object in getting the Speaker out of the Chair on these Estimates that night, except that of facilitating the progress of business. If the right hon. Gentleman were

  463
  to consent to adjourn the Debate until the first Thursday after the holidays, he would in all probability make quite as much progress on the Thursday and Friday as he would if he forced them to continue the discussion that night. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, the discussion on the Estimates could be made to last a long time in certain circumstances, or it might be considerably shortened if a friendly feeling prevailed. He really believed that the right hon. Gentleman would make greater progress if he took the course he suggested.
  *MR. KNOXasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he was really aware of the number of subjects that would have to be discussed before the Speaker could be got out of the Chair on these Estimates?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
  *MR. KNOXasked whether he was entitled to move the adjournment of the Debate?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I should not accept such a Motion.
  *MR. KNOXappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the adjournment of the Debate, on the special ground that not a single opportunity had been given to Debate any Irish questions on this Motion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
  *MR. KNOXasked, whether he was entitled to discuss the Armenian question upon this Motion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put, "That the question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 55.—(Division List, No. 84.)
  The House was cleared for a Division, and Members were locked in the Division Lobbies, when Lord Stanley, one of the Tellers for the "Ayes," made a Report to Mr. Speaker, who thereupon ordered the doors to be unlocked. Members having resumed their places,
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid: I named two hon. Members as Tellers—Dr. Tanner
  464
  and Mr. Pickersgill. The hon. Member for Mid Cork declined to tell, and upon inquiry being made in the "No" Lobby, no other hon. Member was ready to tell. There being no Teller therefore for the "Noes," I declare that the "Ayes" have it. [Cheers.]

  WALES AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to call attention to the operation of Section 10 of the Local Government Act of 1888, with the object of having it put into immediate operation as far as the Principality of Wales was concerned. He had intended to deal with Section 81 as well, but he understood from the Chair that it would not be competent to call attention to that section.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Section 10 deals with certain duties or powers of the Local Government Board; Section 81 merely deals with the voluntary action of the County Councils and Quarter Sessions, and those bodies did not come on the Estimates.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that Section 10 proposed that after the passing of this Act Provisional Orders should be made for certain purposes—the transferring to County Councils of the powers, duties and liabilities of the Privy Council exercised by the Secretary of State, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the Education Department or any other Department arising within the county of an administrative character. Sub-section 2 made certain provisions with regard to the Provisional Order of a purely executive character. Sub-section 3 provided that the powers, duties or liabilities referred to in Provisional Orders arising within two or more counties might be transferred to the County Councils and exercised and discharged by a Joint Committee. The Joint County Councils of Wales and Monmouth were formed in 1891 for the purpose of carrying into operation the objects of this clause. At that time an appeal was made to the President of the Board of Trade with the view of putting this section into operation, but there was a difficulty of some kind. The right hon. Gentleman raised some objection on the ground of funds, but he had no objection to the

  465
  principle; indeed he spoke strongly in support of the section. At the time a Bill was introduced, and it was proposed first that certain powers of the Government Department should be transferred immediately to the County Councils. There was appended to the Bill a schedule of the powers which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated should he transferred immediately on the Act coming into operation. It was intended that the section should operate with reference to piers and harbours, tramways, provisional orders for gas and electric lighting and other matters. The present President of the Local Government Board, when the Measure was before Parliament, objected to a proposal to transfer these powers to the County Councils before experience had been gained of those bodies. Now, however, such experience had been gained, and there was no doubt that the County Councils of England and Wales had done admirably. The President of the Local Government Board, he felt sure, would no longer object to the transference of these powers to the County Councils. There was, in fact, no reason whatever for refusing to put the section into operation. The 3rd Section of the Clause contemplated the exercise, of the powers referred to by County Councils and by Joint Committees of County Councils, and he should prefer that these powers or most of them at all events—should be entrusted to Joint Committees rather than to County Councils themselves. He took the first Government Department which was alluded to in the section, the Local Government Board. What were the powers of the Local Government Board? The sanctioning of loans to local authorities, the sanctioning of orders with regard to parish boundaries, the sale of property by local authorities, the supervision of poor law guardians, and the sanctioning of orders with regard to allotments. If an application was for the sanction of the Board for the expenditure of money, the Board sent down an inspector of more or less experience; but these inspectors did not know the language spoken by two-thirds of the people whose wants they came to investigate, and the result was that they were excluded from stating their view of the case. The Inquiry in many cases partook of the nature of a farce. The
  466
  inspector knew nothing of the wants of the locality, and did not understand the language of the bulk of the population, and it was impossible for an inspector of that character to report properly. There was no doubt that the Local Government Board was considerably under- manned. No one could suggest anything against the officials of that Department. There could not be a more hard-working or courteous body, but at the same time it was perfectly obvious that it was utterly impossible for them to master all the details of the local cases that came before them. He knew a case which happened recently, and which might have ended disastrously for the town concerned. The authorities of the town, which was a sea-side place, wanted to borrow money for the purpose of waterworks. The whole prosperity and, indeed, the very existence of the place depended upon the carrying out of the waterworks, but it was not without the greatest difficulty that the Local Government Board were induced to appoint an inspector to inquire into the local circumstances, the truth being that the Department was undermanned and had far more important matters to attend to. But the question was one of vital importance to the town concerned. He thanked the Secretary to the Local Government Board for his action in the matter, acknowledging that it was through his assistance that the Inquiry was at length granted. His first point was that the Local Government Board had not got the local knowledge, and his second that they had not really the time to enter into the minute details which must necessarily weigh with any honest and conscientious official before he granted sanction to the expenditure of the money of the ratepayers. It might be urged that local authorities were only too eager to spend money, and that it was necessary to exercise considerable vigilance with regard to them. But that vigilance was not exercised now, because the Local Government Board could not know anything about the district and had not the time to go into the questions. Then as regarded parish boundaries, such as the question of whether a certain field in one parish should be taken into another, and what proportion of the burden of taxation of the parish to which it was originally attached, should be relieved in

  467
  respect of the transfer, were surely matters which could be decided without having to be brought up to London and discussed in a Department which had already enormous interests to take charge of. Surely an insignificant matter of that kind could be transferred to the local authority. Another point to which he wished to refer was the fact that the Local Government Board had to be consulted with regard to any sale of property, however small, by the County Council. If the Council had a small plot of ground, or an old building, they did not require, and wished to get rid of, they could not sell it without first obtaining the consent of the Local Government Board. Was not that absurd? If an individual was capable of carrying out such a matter of business for himself, surely a local authority, who knew all the local circumstances, could be intrusted to do so. [Mr. MACLURE: "What about jobbery?"] An hon. Member had referred to jobbery, and his reply to the remark was, that in Manchester, the jobbery which existed there at one time was discovered, not by the Local Government Board, but by the local authority. If the people of Manchester had had to depend on the Local Government Board in the matter, they would have had to wait a long time for the discovery. The very way to put an end to jobbery, or to prevent it, was to place those matters in the hands of the local body, who were well acquainted with all the facts in connection with the transaction. To Boards of Guardians, the Local Government Board issued voluminous reports with regard to the administration of the poor law. They were excellent publications, and some he had read recently contained very valuable recommendations as to the amelioration of the condition of the poor in workhouses, and as to nursing and hospitals, but his contention was the recommendations simply ended with the printer's bill. There was no attempt to put them into operation beyond what the inspectors did. Those gentlemen attended the meetings of the Guardians, but spoke in a language which was not understood by three-fourths of the Members of the Boards, and, consequently, their remarks had no weight. If good work was to be done there must be pressure, not from an overworked Government Department, but from the locality.
  468
  They must transfer the power either to the County Council or to Joint Committees of the County Councils, whose duty it would be to see the power exercised. No doubt the Local Government Board had done everything they possibly could do to relieve acute distress arising from the want of employment, but what could they do? They confined themselves to issuing circulars to the local authorities, and they only got stereotyped replies. It was not by issuing circulars they got people to respect the law. If there was anything to be done it must be the result of local initiative. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would recollect the recommendations made in regard to the unemployed. Very well. In certain cases modifications were made in districts where they were not required, and in other cases modifications of a totally different character were made. The whole pointed to the conclusion that what they required to put the powers into effective use was local knowledge. They must have local knowledge. The Local Government Board could not possibly administer the poor law over a wide area. It was purely a question of administration. He should not refer to the Allotments Act and to larger holdings. There was a great difficulty in inducing local authorities to put these Acts into operation. In fact, they had a wholesome dislike to increasing the rates. It was a duty with regard to the criminal law, if that was infringed, to enforce it. They held that it was the duty of the Government to see that the Acts of Parliament, which were of a constructive character, and which conduced to good government, were carried out as well as those of a repressive character. Take the Educational Department. A very large portion of the administration was given to the County Councils, and, as a matter of fact, that had been done with regard to higher and primary education in Wales. All these powers had been conferred upon Joint Committees of the County Councils. He thought they had worked with admirable success. He believed that in a few years it would become the best system, simply because it had been administered by the local authorities, and because there was local initiative. There was unparalleled success in building up the Educational system,

  469
  all attributable to the fact that they had begun with local initiative, local super intendence and local knowledge. His suggestion was that the procedure which had been followed with such success in the matter of secondary education should also be followed in regard to primary education. At present they had got set of rules which had been framed for the whole kingdom, but which were totally unadapted to the Celtic race, many of whom were mono-lingual. It was only within the last few years that the Minister for Education had been induced to recognise the Welsh language at all. and a good deal of the credit of that was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the. Dartford division of Kent, and the Welsh people would always feel grateful to him for recognising the separate educational requirements of Wales. Then there were powers now vested in the President of the Board of Trade which, in the original draft of the Local Government Act of 1888 it was proposed to transfer straight off to the County Councils. He referred to the powers relative to piers, harbours, gas or electric lighting, and tramways. They had now got experience of County Councils, and, he thought it was incumbent on the President of the Board of Trade, who was one of the originators of the act, to see that the transfer should now he made. It was absurd that they should have to come to the House of Commons, and go through the whole gamut of the officials in order to get a tramway or a gas company for a little village in. Wales. At any rate, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he would not transfer these powers immediately to the County Councils, that he should form a Welsh Department in the Local Government Board to deal with them. They only-asked that the sytem which had worked so well in regard to Scotland and Ireland should be followed in regard to Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was notable to give him any undertaking at present that his suggestions should be carried out, he hoped that he would put them into operation when he had the opportunity of doing so.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said that he would follow the example that
  470
  had been set by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and would delay the House as little as he could in replying to the hon. Member. We had new had some years' experience of the working of County Councils, which, in his view, had been satisfactory, and had not justified the fears that were expressed at the time when the Act which created them was passed into law. It was unnecessary for him to delay the House long in reference to the powers which the hon. Member desired should be transferred to the County Councils in Wales as speedily as possible. The hon. Member had referred to the difficulty that was experienced by the Inspectors, of the Local Government Board in performing their duties in Wales, owing to their ignorance of the Welsh language. He fully admitted that there was some ground for the hon. Gentleman's complaint, and he could assure the hon. Member that he would keep an open mind with regard to it. No doubt practical difficulties did arise from the fact, and he would see whether something could not be done to meet them. The hon. Gentleman had given a great many reasons why certain of the powers now exercised by the Local Government Board should be transferred to the Welsh County Councils, and one of his strongest reasons for the change he proposed was that the Local Government Board itself was undermanned. It must, however, be remembered that a great number of additional duties had been imposed, by statute and otherwise, upon the Board during recent years—he was afraid, with the result that it was true that sometimes their transactions were not carried out with the rapidity that could be desired, and that occasionally considerable delay had occurred. When the hon. Member asked him to consent to the transfer of these powers in the Principality of Wales, he must ask him to remember that the transfer had not been carried out anywhere up to the present time, and he could hardly expect him to give a definite pledge on the subject that night. It was the first occasion on which the question had been raised. He was not aware of any demand that had reached the Local Government Board from any of the Town Councils in Wales for the transfer of these powers. He agreed that this was no reason why he should turn a deaf

  471
  ear to the appeal of the hon. Member. On the contrary, while he could not agree with his proposals that the Local Government Board should abandon its control over the administration of poor law in Wales, he admitted that some alterations might possibly be made. The hon. Member pointed out the desirability of improving the system under which nurses were appointed. It was frequently the duty of the Local Government Board to press on the Boards of Guardians the necessity of carrying out this duty. Reserving the full right to be absolved from any distinct pledge on the subject, he assured the hon. Member that he should approach the question in the spirit the hon. Member would desire, acknowledging that there was much in what he had said which deserved, and should receive, consideration.
  MR. H. LEWISsaid that Members from Wales on both sides would feel exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his reply, for the practical concession he had made, and for consenting to consider the suggestions they had offered. But the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that this was the first time the question had been raised. It was true that this was the first time the question had been raised since the Debate of 1888. He held in his hand a number of official resolutions which had been passed by the County Councils of South Wales and Monmouthshire since the passing of the Act of 1888, which indicated the interest that had been taken in it. Owing to the Debates in the House of Commons, great interest was excited in Wales upon the subject, and nearly every County Council in Wales unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that it was desirable that the Local Government Board should act on the powers it had under Section 10 of the Local Government Act. They considered that an association of Welsh County Members should be formed to receive the powers the Local Government Board was to confer. The Local Government Board did make a serious attempt to delegate its powers and those of other Departments to the County Councils, but that attempt was defeated by the action of the smaller boroughs and of the municipal Coporations Association. The Welsh County Councils were disappointed, and they held two
  472
  great conferences of anon-party character. At the second twelve of the sixteen County Councils were represented, and no party question entered into the deliberations. He had twice introduced a Bill to obtain these powers; but the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of administration, would be able to do a great deal without further legislation. The County Councils had a practical share in the work of education in its various branches. They were directly represented in the University of Wales; they appointed representatives to the University College; they nominated a majority of the County governing bodies, and these governing bodies had for some time past met in a general conference, whose deliberations showed that Welshmen of all classes could combine for great administrative objects. The work of the Government departments in London was becoming enormous. He hoped that when the proper time came the right hon. Gentleman, acting in the spirit of the speech which he had just made, to their great gratification, would make up his mind that something effective should at last be done to carry out the policy of the Government which passed the Local Government Act of 1888.

  FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  *MR. KNOXrose to call attention to the distribution of the Fee Grant between England, Ireland, and Scotland. In the year 1891 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the present First Lord of the Admiralty—found himself able to give free education to England. In the first year the right hon. Gentleman estimated that the comparatively small sum of £900,000 would be necessary for the purpose, and when he gave the present larger sum for free education to England he admitted that it was only fair that an equivalent sum should be given to Ireland and Scotland. Scotland had partially free education at the time, but Ireland had not, and it was found impossible to give it to her that year, having regard to Parliamentary time. But the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that he would make an equivalent Grant to Ireland and Scotland, based, not on the educational needs of these countries, but on their contributions to the revenue

  473
  of the United Kingdom. He agreed that the equivalent grant to Scotland should be eleven-eightieths, and the equivalent grant to Ireland nine-eightieths of the English grant. The Secretary to the Treasury had denied that there was any Parliamentary contract, hut he could satisfy the House that there was. In 1891, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said: —
  "My Budget Estimate was prepared upon the basis that the Education Grant would be distributed in the proportion of 80 per cent. to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland, and 9 per cent. to Ireland."
  On another occasion, when the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs had urged that the Lord Advocate's statement in introducing the Bill was not explicit enough on the point whether Scotland was to have the benefit of an increase in the grant, year by year, in proportion to the increase in the English grant, the Lord Advocate said:—
  "I thought I made it clear enough that this amount is to vary in the proportion I have indicated, as the English amount varies."
  When the Scotch Bill came on for discussion, in 1892, this point was gone into in considerable detail. He could give many instances, but he would select a few. The Solicitor General for Scotland at that time said:—
  "The proportion fixed by the Treasury officials has been borne out by the experience of three successive years. Further, the matter has not been concluded once for all. By the words which now find a place in the Bill, it will always be open till the House comes to a more perfect state of knowledge on the question."
  Now, precisely the same words were used in the Irish Bill of the same year that were used in the Scotch Bill, and therefore, what was said about the one Bill applied to the other. The matter was raised in even a more precise form by the hon. Member for Caithness. The hon. Member took up the ground that the principle was altogether a false one, and he moved an Amendment to leave out the £265,000, and he used these words:—
  "We have 540,000 children in average attendance, and the Grant of 10s. per head would amount to £270,000, £4,000 or £5,000 more than we get under the Bill "
  474
  The question, he added, affected Ireland even more vitally than Scotland, and would probably make a difference in her case of £80,000 or £100,000. As a matter of fact that was an exaggeration, but it did make a difference of £70,000 to Ireland. The point of the hon. Member was evidently considered to be one of great importance, because the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House replied to him and argued that the balance of advantage was on the whole in favour of the scheme proposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman added that the only other principle on which to allocate the money was that stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer— namely, to pay each country an amount proportionate to that which the country paid to the general Exchequer of the Empire; that was the plan adopted in the Bill, but if it should turn out in future that the average attendance in England was changed, it might be necessary to modify the proportion of Scotland, so as to make it bear a better proportion to the English grant. But they could not treat Scotland and Ireland as if they were on the same basis as England. They were not on the same basis. This was the right hon. Gentleman's contention, and showed very clearly that the proportions were fixed, not on a consideration of educational needs, but on a consideration of relative contributions to the Exchequer. The matter was argued out on the Scotch Bill, and he defied any reasonable man to read through the reports of what took place on that Bill, to say that there was not a Parliamentary contract by which eleven-eightieths of the English grant should be paid to Scotland and nine-eightieths to Ireland. Would the Government promise that there should be a Select Committee to inquire into this matter, or a special reference made to the Public Accounts Committee? He pledged himself that he and his hon. Friends would absolutely abide by the decision, without trying to raise the matter again. The question was so clear that he would be glad to lay the matter before any independent body for decision, and to abide absolutely by what it said. The same words were used precisely in

  475
  the two Acts. The Irish Act said that:—
  "There should be an annual grant of £210,000, or of such other amount as Parliament may determine, having reference to the amount of the fee grant under the Elementary Education Act, 1881."
  That solemn Parliamentary contract had not been carried out in any single year since it was made. As far as Ireland was concerned, she ought to have got in each year £210,000, or such other amount as Parliament determined, having regard to the English fee grant. The first full year was 1892–3, and England got £1,942,000; Ireland, in proportion, should have received £218,000, but, as a matter of fact, Ireland only received £156,000. The Irish Education Act did not come into force until a portion of the financial year had gone by, but Ireland was not compensated for the loss which she thereby suffered. There was, therefore, a breach of the spirit of the contract entered into by the right hon. Member for St. George's. If the Government were unable to employ the money for free education in Ireland, then it was their duty to see that the money was employed for some other educational purpose. But they kept the money in the Treasury. In 1893–4 Ireland ought to have received £238,000, but she only received £210,000; and in 1894–5 Ireland received £33,000 less than she ought to have got. It was the business of the Treasury to see that the Act of Parliament was carried out in letter and in spirit. They tried to shift the responsibility on the Irish National Board; but that did not avail them, for the National Board was itself the creation of England. It was true that the composition of the Board had been improved recently by the addition to it of the Archbishop of Dublin and certain other gentlemen, but when the Board was appointed no pretence was made that it represented the feelings of the Irish Representatives. For the Treasury to shift the blame on the National Board was merely for one English Department to shift the blame upon another. The Treasury knew perfectly well that the Irish grant should have been annually increased, for year by year the Treasury did increase the Scotch grant, which was ruled by the
  476
  same words precisely as the Irish grant, but they did not increase it enough. They made no allowance for the Supplementary Estimates which were made for English education in each year, and in no year did they give Scotland her proportion of these Supplementary Estimates though they did give her her proportion of the ordinary Estimates. The Treasury had deprived Ireland of this money knowing that Ireland ought to get it. He was not attacking the Secretary to the Treasury personally. He was not then at the Treasury. It was a matter of principle. Governments might come in, Governments might go out, but the Treasury still ground Ireland year by year. It was the policy of the Department he was objecting to, and he submitted that if there was—and he was ready to prove it before any impartial tribunal, the Public Accounts Committee if it was desired—if there was a solemn Parliamentary contract by which these proportions of the English grant should be given every year to Ireland and Scotland and it had been broken, was it not a miserable thing that the Treasury of this rich country should say that the responsibility did not belong to them, but that the blame must lie on the ignorance of the Irish Education Department? The right hon. Gentleman had suggested another defence, namely, that the Irish Members ought to have called attention to the matter sooner. Other Members had at times access to official information. The Irish Members never had. They always stood outside the departments trying to get justice done without any inner knowledge of what was going on. The Irish Members had done their duty in these matters, but they had been frequently over-reached by the Treasury. It was not fair to lay the blame on the Irish Members for it was by them that this mistake was first discovered. He had raised the question in 1894. It could only have been raised one Session earlier; and that was the Home Rule Session, when it was not possible to raise these questions of detail. The strain on the minds of men was quite exceptional during that Session, and he did not think that the fact that they omitted to raise the point then could be used as evidence of laches on their part. In the Session of 1894 he raised the

  477
  question several times. At first he found the Chief Secretary had no know-lodge of the matter. Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman said he had made out a primâ, facie case, and by degrees he got out of the right hon. Gentle man an important answer in the early part of the Session of 1895. The Question he asked, on the 11th February 1895, was as follow:—
  "I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has been able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether, under the Education Act of 1892, the Irish For Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80."
  To that the late. Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) replied:—
  "The Treasury, on the representation of the Irish Government, have admitted that, under the Education Act of 1892. the Irish Fee Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80; and they have agreed to insert in the Estimate for the coming year the increased amount asked for by the Irish Education Commissioner."
  There was also some reference to past arrears, he believed, although it was not mentioned in the Official Report, and he should have pressed the matter further, but the existence of the then Government was brought to an end. The Treasury reluctantly admitted the principle, and the principle applied to the past as well as to the present year. But they did not attempt to put it in force in its application to past years, and they refused at this moment to put it into force in relation to past years. They did profess to put it in force in reference to a future year—that was the year which was just closing. But how did they do it? They first made a large blunder in the figures of about £9,000. He never understood the basis of the blunder or who made it, but the error was to the disadvantages of Ireland. They then brought forward another Estimate to make up that error, but again they were wrong, the Estimate being so framed that it was still £3,500 short. He understood the right hon. Gentleman was willing now to rectify that blunder, but he claimed that there was still a large sum of arrears, and until that was dealt with England would not have
  478
  cleared herself of her financial dishonesty towards the poorer country. Irish Members had been frequently told they ought to respect contracts. Poor Irish peasants had been run into jail for not respecting contracts, and why, he asked, should not the Treasury keep its contracts on a big scale as well as the poor Irish tenant on a small scale? The only difference was that there was no remedy at Jaw by which Parliament could be made to disgorge any sum which should have been paid over under any Parliamentary contract. They could cover themselves, if they liked, under that defence, just as a man who owed a just debt could plead the Statute of Limitations or infancy or any such plea without, he thought, increasing his credit in the eyes of his fellow men. But they did not get rid of the fact that they made a solemn contract with Ireland, and that they had broken that contract. If an agreement made between the two sides of the House was to be broken in that way, there would be no finality about anything that was done in this House. It was the duty of the Government to carry out the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed, and to see that these arrears were made good, and that they got their nine-eightieths of the, English grant from the time when the Act was passed. There was another defence which the. right hon. Gentleman urged, and that was that the need for this money was not so great in Ireland as in England. That defence was not one which was really open to the right hon. Gentleman, for educational needs were not the basis of the arrangement. The basis was that it should be an equivalent grant, and as a matter of tact nobody who knew the condition of schools in Ireland, and the very small payments given to the teachers in. Irish schools, could say that really this money was not needed for this purpose in Ireland. From time to time hon. Members opposite, taunted them with the amount of illiteracy in Ireland, and yet they refused to keep a contract which was entered into in order that they should have a constantly-increasing sum to apply to the needs of their education in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a different principle in the Act of this year. It was a principle to which he did not object,

  479
  and if it had been adopted from the first he should have seen no grievance in it. The fee grant was for the future to be divided on the principle of 10s. per head. That was the principle which was originally contended for, and if it had been given at first Ireland would have got £70,000 a year more from the beginning. What he objected to was not that this new principle had been introduced, but that it had been introduced by the Treasury without making up for the arrears which had arisen from the neglect and breach of the old principle. The matter was one of such great importance that the Archbishop of Dublin had brought it prominently before the Irish public, while both Unionist and Nationalist newspapers had supported it. It was a point of such absolute clearness that, as he had said before, he ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not at once give the Irish Members an affirmative answer, to place the whole subject before a Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, and the Irish Members would be perfectly ready to abide by their decision.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBUEY,)said, the hon. Member had laid great stress upon an alleged breach of contract. If any contract had really been broken, he would say at once that everything he claimed for Ireland ought to be granted. But upon what was the allegation based? The hon. Member based it upon Amendments which were proposed during the passage of the Bill, and on certain theories which were broached while the Bill was under discussion. What the Government rested upon, however, were not Amendments of that kind, but upon the Bill as it now stood in the Statute Book, and that Bill made no reference whatever to the nine-eightieths upon which the hon. Member based his whole case. What the Bill said was that the grant to Ireland should be £210,000 a year, or such other sum as Parliament should determine, having regard to the English educational fee grant. That was exactly what had been done, and, therefore, could not constitute a breach of Parliamentary contract. The hon. Member must admit that Ireland had had the £210,000 a year specifically mentioned in the Act. Then he went
  480
  on to the second portion of the sentence which provided that if the £210,000 was not paid then there should be paid such other sum as Parliament might direct during that year. But Parliament had made no direction of that kind. Why had £210,000 been paid instead of this other sum? For the simple reason that no request of any kind for anything beyond the £210,000 had ever been submitted to the Treasury. It was in the power of the hon. Gentleman to raise the question.
  *MR. KNOXsaid he raised it in the Session of 1894.
  *MR. HANBURYbelieved the hon. Member raised it at the end of 1894–5.
  *MR. KNOXsaid he raised the question on two separate occasions in the Session of 1894, in August.
  *MR. HANBURYremarked that in that case the hon. Gentleman raised the matter when a Government favourable to his political views were in power, and they refused his request. These Estimates were submitted by the Commissioners of Education for Ireland, amongst whom there were some very powerful friends of the hon. Gentleman. Why had the Commissioners never till this year raised the question? Why was this claim never raised when the hon. Member's Friends were in Office?
  *MR. KNOXasked if the right hon. Gentleman did not say the other day that in February 1895, the Commissioners asked for a repayment of these arrears, and the Treasury refused them?
  *MR. HANBURYbelieved, but was not sure, that the Commissioners raised the question about February 1895, and there was a refusal. Up to the present year Ireland had received everything in accordance with the Act. No Parliamentary contract had been broken, because the sum directed by Parliament had been paid to Ireland. What had been the position of the present Government since they came into Office? The hon. Gentleman said the Treasury always ground Ireland down. Was that to be laid at the door of the Treasury during the present year? On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman had had from the Treasury the utmost he had asked. When the late Chief Secretary for Ireland promised that Ireland should have nine-eightieths of the English grants, the promise was hardly carried

  481
  out strictly, because the nine-eightieths was not based upon the original grant of this year but upon the grant of last year without taking the Supplementary Estimates into account at all. The present Treasury had given Ireland her nine eightieths of the original grant for this year, which represented a much larger sum than if based on the Estimate of the preceding year, and he promised the other Gentlemen they would also take into consideration Ireland's share of the Supplementary Estimates. Ireland had had from the present Government the whole of her share. They had gone even further than that. Under the new system they had given her everything asked for, but what they did not do was to undo the work of the late Government. The late Government, or the late Parliament, refused to give to Ireland her fair share as the hon. Member had said. That might be so or not, but Ireland had the money in strict accordance with the Act, and it was utterly impossible that the Government could re-open the account. He thought if there was any blame in the matter it must rest entirely on their predecessor's and not on the present Treasury, which had provided not only for this year but for future years.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, they were told that they were giving nine-eightieths of the English grant to Ireland, and eleven-eightieths in the coming year to Scotland. Why-were they giving that in the coming year? What right had they to give it unless an Act of Parliament authorised them to give it? [Ironical cheers.] They could not go beyond the present year. They did not get the money, and then they were asked, "Why didn't you get it?" ["Hear, hear!"] This was not a Party question. It was all a matter of simple calculation. It would be found that Scotland had not got within about £30,000 of the amount she really ought to have got for these fee grants. He objected altogether to its being; said that it was the duly of the Liberal Government when in power to carry out this undertaking; it was not a Party question. According to the Government's own interpretation of this Act, it was clear that Scotland had not got that amount which she ought to have got.
  MR. FLYNNrose to support the Motion, when
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHclaimed to move, ''That the question be now put."
  *MR. SPEAKERdeclined then to put the Question.
  MR. FLYNN,MR. FLYNN, continuing, said, the hon. Member who had last spoken had made out a clear case. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given away his entire argument when he said that Scotland was getting eleven-eightieths; if that was so, Ireland demanded her nine-eightieths, to which she was entitled. The Scotch Act and the Irish Act were worded exactly alike, the only difference being in the figures. In 1891 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now the First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a question, referred an hon. Member to the term 144 for an indication of the manner in which the percentages 80, 11 and 5 were originally arrived at, and said that in adapting this to the distribution of the Education Grant they had been guided not only by the calculations from which the original percentages were derived, but also from recent inquiries which confirmed the accuracy of the figures. They contended that that statement was a Parliamentary contract. He intended to be very brief, and he promised the House that he would not occupy more than a few minutes in making his remarks. The figures showed that Ireland had, he would not say been defrauded of, but underpaid some £32,000 per annum in respect of her share of the Education Grant. It was no sufficient answer for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to say that it was the fault of the Liberal Party that this injustice had been done. Whether it was the fault of the Liberal Party or of the Tory Party, he did not care- -all he knew, was that the injustice land been committed, and therefore, he said, "a plague on both your houses." If the National Board of Ireland had not made its demands upon the Treasury, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, that certainly was not the fault of the Irish people.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: All these matter's which the hon. Member is discussing have been already dealt with.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, that he did not desire to address the House at any undue length, but he suggested that either the right hon. Gentleman should agree that the Treasury should pay over to Ireland her fair share of the grant, or else that the matter should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland would give the House an assurance that he had some regard for Irish Education, and would not allow the interests of Ireland to be overborne by the unfair and unjust action of the Treasury.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move:—"That the Question be now put."
  *MR. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members will be of opinion that the subject has been sufficiently discussed, and that it will be unnecessary that the Closure should be applied.
  Another HON. MEMBER rose to speak, whereupon,
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 27.—(Division List, No. 85.)
  Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Supply considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. STUART-WORTLEY in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1896–7.

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
    Committee report Progress; to sit upon Thursday, 9th April.

  SUPPLY [27TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported;
  Resolutions read a second time:—

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,133,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the supply and repair of warlike and other stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,007,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and expenditure for Royal Engineer works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £119,900, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £51,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for sundry miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,357,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the in-pensioners thereof, of out-pensions, of the maintenance of lunatics for whom pensions are not drawn, and of gratuities awarded in commutation and in lieu of pensions, of rewards for meritorious services, of Victoria Cross pensions, and of pensions to the widows and children of Warrant Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1896–7 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,350,018, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  £

  Foreign Office

  22,000

  CLASS V.

  British Protectorates in Uganda and Central Africa

  40,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  13,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  34,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  11,000

  SOUDAN EXPEDITION.
  MR. LABOUCHERErose to call attention to the explanations of the Government in regard to the Soudan expedition. With regard to the reasons alleged for the expedition, he said the answers of the Under Secretary were so diplomatic that he really could not understand the position of Lord Cromer in the matter. He asked the right hon.
  488
  Gentleman specifically to tell the House whether the expedition was in consequence of the advice of Lord Cromer or against his advice. It was a most astounding doctrine to lay down, when the Government was asked what was the opinion of Lord Cromer, that it was inexpedient and improper to tell the House what was the opinion of any particular adviser. The thing turned very much upon what Lord Cromer did advise, he being the adviser of the Government in Egypt. Again, as to the reason advanced, that the expedition was intended partly for the relief of Kassala, he wished to know why in the name of common sense the expedition did not proceed by Suakim rather than by Wady Haifa, 700 miles away. He pointed out that when it was proposed to go to the relief of Italy, Signor Crispi was the Italian Minister, and a Jingo of the Jingoes, more Jingo even than the Colonial Secretary. But Signor Crispi had ceased to be a Minister and had been replaced by the Marquess di Rudini, who occupied the same position as if, in regard to Egypt, the right hon. Member for the Montrose burghs were to replace Lord Salisbury as Prime Minister. The Marquess di Rudini had stated that there was no Protectorate at all in Abyssinia, and that though Italy held Kassala, it did not belong to Italy, but was held simply with a pledge to give it back to Egypt should Egypt re-acquire her sway in the Soudan. The Under Secretary told the House that the expedition was only going a hundred miles or so to another outpost. So convinced was the Leader of the Opposition that this expedition merely meant a little raid into the Soudan with the view of occupying this outpost, and nothing more, that he did not vote on that occasion. But on the Debate on the Vote on Account the Colonial Secretary told the House that we were to go as far as we did not meet with resistance—our advance was to be limited by the resistance offered; and so pleased was the Under Secretary with this military and strategical plan of the right hon. Gentleman, that on Saturday, at Southport, he compared the Colonial Secretary to Alexander the Great. [Laughter.] At the end of the Debate the Leader of the House said we meant to go as far as we could, and where we went we intended to stay. But still the

  489
  House understood that the intention of the expedition was to defend the frontier by taking some military outpost in the Soudan. In the newspapers, however, it appeared that the Sultan sent to the Khedive asking what was going on in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman said that the answer of the Khedive to the Sultan was that we were making an expedition because this was an opportune moment for getting back Dongola. This threw a new light on the whole affair, ft was understood that there was no intention to go to Dongola, and when asked to explain the statement of the Khedive, the Under Secretary said that the House must only take its information from Ministers. But it was exceedingly difficult to get any information as to the expedition. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say, specifically, whether he repudiated this statement by the Khedive and affirmed it to be untrue, or whether he recognised it as a statement in conformity with the, intentions of the Government, and whether it was the intention of the Government to go to Dongola. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech at Southport, on Saturday, threw a new light on everything connected with this expedition. He suggested that we were going to undertake it because in Africa there were light-coloured and dark-coloured people, and because the latter must be taught that it was hopeless to contend against the former. This doctrine greatly enlarged our obligations, and, if acted upon, would, in the end, make us a species of general police in Africa in the interests of the white population. If we were to be defeated in the Soudan he did not believe that the white population of any other country would come to our aid. The right hon. Gentleman repeated at Southport that one object of the expedition was to defend the frontier against some possible raid on the part of the Soudanese into Egypt. But could the right hon. Gentleman refer to a single military man who said that the frontier of Egypt to the south was unsafe, and that we were rendering it safer by advancing a certain distance into the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman the; Under Secretary himself gave a new explanation in his speech at Southport of the object and intention of the expedition.
  490
  He said it was a preliminary to a permanent recovery by Egypt of a small portion of her old provinces, as a step to the recovery of the whole. This country was a desert with a few oases in. it which were inhabited by fierce, nomadic tribes, and was it to be supposed that they would allow one of their little oases to be taken after another without a struggle. Such a war as this would last for years. It was the case when it was announced that we were going to hold Suakim. For two years we were persistently attacked by the Soudanese, who possibly thought that if we kept Suakim we should eventually take Berber, and go to Khartoum; and if the scheme of the new Alexander the Great, the Secretary for the Colonies, was carried out, it would cost this country a great deal both in blood and money. He read in The Times that morning that there was a feeling of perfect horror in Cairo at what we were doing. It was stated that the move towards Dongola, being made in accord with England, was naturally regarded as only the first step in a far more important advance intended to crush the Khalifa's tyranny, a task for which the Egyptian Army alone was not considered strong enough. He agreed with that. He thought it was very probable that British troops would have to be sent out, and he could not help thinking the Government were perfectly aware of that, though they did not like to say so at once. They wanted to lead up to it step by step. We should first hear that the Egyptian troops had advanced, and then that English troops were to follow. There must, in all human probability, be an advance of British troops. The right hon. Gentleman, alluding to Foreign Powers and their views regarding this expedition, said that they had Germany now sustaining their policy. Yes, but some months ago they heard of the fitting out of a flying squadron against Germany. They were then complaining of Germany's unfriendly attitude towards them in South Africa, and now they met that by getting Germany to come forward and outvote France in Northern Africa. He asked was there ever such a tangle as that which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had got into regarding that expedition? The Under Secretary of State admitted that France did not approve of their

  491
  action, but hoped when she understood it better she would approve of it. He himself saw no sign of France approving or being likely to do so. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that their attitude towards France for six months was one of considerable conciliation. What had become of that continuity which was the pride and boast of the Government? They conciliated France for six months. They did that when Germany became a little troublesome, and now they conciliated Germany when France became a little troublesome. That was playing one off against the other, and he could conceive of no policy more likely to unite the two countries one with the other against this country. Was it really so necessary to undertake this expedition to the Soudan at the present moment? Was it so necessary to take the Soudan and place it under Egyptian rule that, in order to do this, after having tried to conciliate France, and having succeeded in conciliating her for six months, they must suddenly break with her and put themselves in the worst possible relations with that country? He desired to know something about the Caisse de la Dette. In the Caisse de la Dette there were certain funds which could be withdrawn with the consent of the Commissioners. The question arose whether the funds could be dealt with with the consent only of all the Commissioners, or by merely a majority? He gathered that it had been decided by a majority that the funds might be withdrawn for this expedition. But how was that majority arrived at, and how was it decided that it was to be a majority and not unanimously? Why, by the majority itself, and naturally the minority appealed against this to the international tribunal. He thought it would have been reasonable to have waited for the decision of the international tribunal before taking the money, but they at once took it out. Supposing the international tribunal decided against this country, who was going to pay the money back? Were they? The funds in the Caisse de la Dette were limited, and, in all probability, would not be sufficient for the expedition. Suppose they were not? How were they going to get the further money? Were they going to pay it themselves? These were
  492
  questions to which they ought to have an answer before they broke up for the holidays. Really, their position in regard to this matter was most unsatisfactory. A few days ago he asked the Under Secretary whether the application to the divers countries to be allowed to withdraw the money from the Caisse de la Dette was made simultaneously, and the right hon. Gentleman said it was. But so far as he could gather from The Times and other newspapers, it seemed to be clearly understood that Germany was sounded beforehand.
  MR. CURZON: Nobody was sounded.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that then he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government had not the most distant idea whether Germany would be in favour of the expedition or not. In all this he thought they ought really to remember, in their relations with Europe, that they had given certain pledges in regard to Egypt. Every Minister he could remember had solemnly declared that their object was to withdraw as soon as they possibly could from Egypt because their continuous occupation, of it was a continuous danger to this country, and that they wished to establish a neutrality, such as existed in Belgium, in Egypt, in order to enable them to withdraw from it. If they were pledged to withdraw, did any hon. Gentleman really think that they would advance that cause by making this expedition into the Soudan, and by attempting to reconquer a portion of the Soudan and to hand it over to Egypt. If they really did add the Soudan to the existing Egyptian provinces, they must unquestionably put an end to their withdrawal for many a day. He thought that Europe was of opinion that they were going to the Soudan in order to find some plea for remaining in Egypt, and not only that, but that they were going there with the intention of not only remaining in Egypt, but in the Soudan. It was all very well their talking about recovering the Soudan for Egypt, but it must be remembered that, so long as they were in Egypt, exercising the same paramount, real, absolute power that they did at the present time, if they added the Soudan to Egypt, it was we who went to the Soudan, and it was we who practically annexed the

  493

  Soudan—it was not Egypt that did so. It might be that that was not the intention of the Government. He only said it looked very much like it, and he was not at all surprised that the European Powers felt that this was very likely the object of the Government. Europe, it must be remembered, was divided at the present time into two camps. On the one side they had the Triple Alliance, and on the other was the Dual Alliance. The Triple Alliance, in this question of the withdrawal of the money voted with them, but did they vote on the merits of the question? No. They voted with them because they wanted to gain favour with them. Why did they want to gain favour with them? In order that they, in their turn, might be able to get something out of them. When they had these two great hostile camps in Europe, when they got a vote carried by one of these hostile camps in opposition to the other one, they were not only dragged into this dispute that existed in Europe, and which would probably, one of these days lead to war, but they were obliged to take sides. He thought that was a most dangerous thing. They really knew absolutely nothing of what was going on, and he wanted to know why they were not to be taken into the confidence of Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to this matter. Were they really not to be told the genuine reason why this expedition had been entered upon? Were they to be put off with one reason one day and one reason another, each contradicting the other t Were the Government afraid of the European Powers knowing what took place? Were they of the Dervishes? No, they were not. They were afraid of public opinion in this country. He was not raising the question of the wisdom of the expedition, but he did say that they were the English Parliament, the great council of the nation, and that they had to express tacitly or actively their approval or otherwise of such an important movement as the Government had now undertaken. But how could they do that unless they had the whole of the facts before them. His complaint was that the Government had not given the House the fair and full facts of the case, and before they separated for the holidays he hoped the Government would be good enough to frankly tell them
  494
  everything they possibly could in connection with the expedition.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he could not sufficiently admire the ardent patriotism which had induced the hon. Gentleman, at the hour of three in the morning, when he was sure to be imperfectly reported, to give a re-hash of all the speeches which had been made by Ministers on the question of Egypt for some time past. The hon. Gentleman had said that he had discovered in the statements of Ministers a great variety of contradictory views. He had listened with curiosity to hear in what these contradictions consisted, but he did not give one single instance showing that the several Members of the Government who had addressed the House on the subject had varied by one hair's breadth in the accounts they had given of the objects and purposes and motives for which the expedition had been undertaken. Then he put a question as to whether the majority of the Caisse could or could not decide how the funds should be disposed. The Government thought a majority could decide in this matter, and they were assured that that would be the ultimate verdict. As regarded the situation he could assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government were not more involved in European arrangements in Treaties now than they were before the expedition was undertaken. Nothing they had done as far as they were aware would involve the country in any future complications with other Powers, and what, else could the hon. Gentleman want?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What about Lord Cromer?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the questions regarding Lord Cromer had already been answered by his right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman supposed, with regard either to Egypt or any other question, the Government were going to lay on the Table of the House all the details and all the heads of the discussions which had taken place between the Government and their advisers, he was greatly mistaken. On such principles no Government could possibly be carried on, and they, in this respect, were merely following the precedents which all other Governments had set. The statement

  495
  made by his right hon. Friend in regard to Lord Cromer both before and after the defeat of the Italians in Abyssinia amply covered all the necessities of the case. He hoped he had now sufficiently dealt with the hon. Member's speech, and that the hon. Member might be able to depart for his holiday fully satisfied with his criticism of the action the Government had taken. [Cheers.]
  MR. EDWARD MORTONfelt we were at this moment in a situation which appeared to him as grave as any position he, in his short experience of politics, had known. In form, the assurance just given by the right hon. Gentleman seemed as satisfactory as it could be, but he could not help recalling to mind the fact that while to-day they were to adjourn for the Easter holiday, there was an occasion just 18 years ago when then, as now, there was a Jingo Government in office, and when then, as now, Lord Salisbury was Foreign Secretary. On the 16th of April, the date of the adjournment for the Easter holidays, a question was asked under the apprehension that the Government was engaged in foreign complications that might land us in a war with Russia. Sir Stafford Northcote, the then Leader of the House, said:—
  "At this moment there is nothing in our policy at all different from that which we have respectively declared to this House. There is no change in the views we have expressed in the Debate which occurred only a week ago."
  The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that:—
  "Nothing in the situation had altered for the worse since the time we last had communication with Parliament on the subject, and we say with the most perfect confidence we see no reason whatever to apprehend any inconvenience from the rising of Parliament for the time mentioned."
  That was the sort of declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman, but what happened? Within a week of Sir Stafford Northcote making that speech, the people of this country were alarmed by the news that Indian troops had been ordered to Malta. [Ministerial cheers.] Was there no change in the policy of the Government? Did the ordering of Indian troops to Malta mean no change in the policy of the Government from
  496
  what was known by the House at the time Sir Stafford Northcote made his speech? It was on the face of it absurd to suggest such a thing. It meant such a change as was denounced at the time by two of the most prominent Members of the present Government, namely, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Colonial Secretary. The present Leader of the House used the same argument that Sir Stafford Northcote used 18 years ago. Sir Stafford Northcote was the soul of honour, and the only inference to be drawn from his words was that there was in the Cabinet an inner Cabinet. [Loud cries of ''Order!"] He should then, he said, speak to his own side. The Government were now engaged in a most dangerous project. They were threatened with many complications. [Ironical cheers.] He did not deny that they should be able to meet those threatened complications, but it was the maddest folly with a hostile America—[''No!'']—and Germany, and—what they had always to reckon with in recent years—a hostile France, to plunge into the desert involving more serious difficulties still. [Uproar.] There was a phrase which had been generally used which sounded now somewhat ridiculous—"splendid isolation.'' If they were free from dangerous alliances and complications that might be all very well, but the solidarity of the British Empire was worth vastly more than any alliance. He agreed with regard to Italy that the worst service they could render her was to support her in her policy. Their policy in the Soudan was little short of iniquitous, and he was sure they would realise that when they woke up in the morning —[laughter]—it was little short of madness.

  WELSH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he had no alternative but to raise the question of the intimidation of Welsh witnesses before the Land Commission. Welsh tenant farmers who gave evidence before the Commission had been served with notice to quit and had been evicted, and, he contended, it was the duty of the Public Prosecutor, under the Act passed by the Unionist Government of 1892, to protect these witnesses. These cases

  497
  had been reported to the Public Prosecutor, and to the Home Office, and within the last few days the Home Office had intimated to the Commissioners their decision not to prosecute. That was a decision which he wished to challenge by a reduction of the Vote for the Home Office by £500. There were about a dozen cases reported, he believed, but he would take three or four as illustrations. The first was the case of a man called William Thomas, who gave evidence not only on behalf of himself but of his fellow tenants at their request. [Laugher] He thought it would be very instructive if the tenant farmers could hear the way in which their grievances were received by some of the. Conservative Members whom they had returned to Parliament. [Renewed cries of "Question."] He appealed to the Chair for an opportunity of discussing this question.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the hon. Member would not indulge in recriminations he would endeavour to keep order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, he desired nothing better as long as he was not interrupted. The first result of William Thomas having given evidence was that his landlord had practically raised his rent £5, and had since given him notice to quit. Hon. Members opposite appeared to approve of that action, and this Debate would serve at all events one purpose, namely, to show the approval of hon. Members opposite of intimidation of this character. He had, he submitted, proved that intimidation had been practised upon witnesses who had given evidence before the Land Commission. A charge made against another landlord was that he had evicted certain tenants because of their religious principles. That man got up a memorial for the purpose of its being signed by the tenants, and to be presented to the Land Commission, stating that the charge was not true, and the moment two of the tenants, one of whom was a widow, declined to sign the memorial, they received notice to quit.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is out of order in going into these details except so far as they bear upon the question of intimidation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, that was just his point. Notice to quit had been given to other tenants on the same ground. Another tenant, named John Thomas, who had given evidence before the Land Commission, had also received notice to quit.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, that he had the names of William and Hugh Thomas, but he had not the name of John Thomas.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that the witness he referred to had received notice to quit. Notice to quit was given though there was no complaint against the tenant. The next case was that of Thomas Davies, which came before the Land Commission at Carmarthen. He complained with regard to his farm that the place was in such a state of disrepair as to be absolutely uninhabitable. For six or seven years at least he had made this complaint. The sanitary inspector condemned the place as absolutely unfit for human habitation. The house had to be rebuilt. It was agreed that the rent in future should be £20. The tenant having given evidence before the Land Commission, was served with notice to quit, and the landlord refused to carry out the arrangements for afresh tenancy for £20 a year.
  *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the question of intimidation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, he would quote from the evidence given before the Land Commission. Here was a case of eviction, and an admission by the agent of the landlord that they evicted because of evidence given before the Commission. There had been a previous complaint against the agent for threatening to evict a tenant unless he voted for a Tory candidate; a letter written by the agent was read in this House at the time. The same agent served a notice to quit upon his father, and evicted him. ["Oh, oh!"] The next case was that of a man called Harris.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,intervening, said he understood these cases had been laid before the late Home Secretary, who investigated them and decided not to deal with them.

  499
  If that was so they could not be brought up on the salary of the present Home Secretary.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, the cases he was now mentioning had all occurred with the current financial year.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY:These are cases which have nothing to do with me. They have been already dealt with by my predecessor.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am fully aware that there were cases——
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was complaining of the Home Secretary for not having taken steps in those cases; but the right hon. Gentleman received no intimation of them.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought I had made that matter clear. Complaint was made in regard to three of the cases to the present Home Secretary, and with regard to the others, which were dealt with by the Public Prosecutor. I raise them on the salary of the Public Prosecutor.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether there is anything about the salary of the Public Prosecutor in the Vote on Account. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has probably looked into the matter, will tell me.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, there is. I had two Motions down dealing with the Home Secretary and the Public Prosecutor, and I thought it would save time to take the two separate cases in the one Vote. With regard to the case of Harris, this man was tenant for 15 years. The landlord had paid the rates of the farm for the whole of the 50 years during which the man and his predecessor had been in the farm. The man gave evidence before the Commission. The next step was that the landlord immediately added the rates to the rent. The overseer, who was a good Conservative and Churchman, gave evidence before the Land Commission, and stated that the landlord had informed him that the tenant
  500
  had had the rates added to his rent because of the evidence he had given before the Commission. It was perfectly obvious that there had been a misdemeanour under the Act. Notice to quit had been served on tenants without any adequate complaint, and in some cases, on the admission of the landlord or agent, merely because of evidence given before the Commission. The Home Secretary or the Public Prosecutor ought to take steps to protect these witnesses; otherwise it would be impossible to elicit the truth. It was only the worst landlords who would be guilty of intimidation, and it was just against them that evidence ought to be given. The result of this intimidation had been that 40 tenant farmers who offered to give evidence were afraid to come forward. After hearing the statements of tenants and landords, the Commissioners were perfectly unanimous that there was a prima facie case for prosecution.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, in reply, said he fully admitted that after a Royal Commission had gone down to Wales, and had emphatically informed all the tenant farmers and others who might be disposed to give evidence that they would be protected in the evidence which they gave, it was the duty of the Home Office and all concerned to see that the Act of Parliament intended for the protection of those tenants should be adequately carried out. His point was that with regard to every case brought before him the most ample inquiry had taken place, and every justice had been done. When, last December, the Chairman of the Royal Commission, accompanied by the hon. Member for Swansea District, called upon him and stated what had taken place, they gave him a list of cases as to which they thought the Public Prosecutor might have taken action, but as to which the Public Prosecutor did not think there was anything on which to proceed. They stated that while they did not think there was the smallest chance of wholesale evic-

  501
  tion, there was a feeling of insecurity existing, and they gave him three cases, those of William Thomas, John Sturm, and Hugh Thomas, with the papers relating to them, with regard to which, in their opinion, inquiry ought to be made. He sent the papers to the Treasury Solicitor, whose report was to the effect that in his opinion there was no evidence upon which the persons said to have used intimidation could be satisfactorily proceeded against. He looked carefully into the cases, and, not being completely satisfied as to one of them that there might not be a chance of conviction, he directed a special inquiry on the spot, because he felt that if there was a reasonable chance of conviction it was right that proceedings should be taken. He did that also because he thought that in the interests of good landlords it was desirable that, if there was a case for it, an example should he made. The inquiry which he made resulted in the fact that, according to the judgment of his advisers, there was no case for proceeding. Not satisfied with that decision, he referred the matter to the Attorney General, and he was of the same opinion. The Attorney General said: "In my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to justify proceedings against two persons mentioned for an offence under the Act." He could not be blamed, therefore, for not taking legal action.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIESsaid, he took a personal interest in this question because he was one of the chief instigators in getting the evidence in his own county put before the Commission. He impressed on the tenant farmers and freeholders that all they wanted was truthful evidence, and no abuse of landlords. The witness he wished to cite was Daniel Jenkins, a schoolmaster in his county and a small farmer.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I rise to order. He is not a witness whose name was before the Home Office
  502
  or the Public Prosecutor, so far as I am aware.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be in a position to vouch for this matter having been brought before the Public Prosecutor.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES: I believe it was laid before the Public Prosecutor.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member in a position to vouch for that fact? He merely says, "I understand it was so."
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The information I have from the Chairman of the Commission is that there were six cases brought before the Commission, and the name mentioned by the hon. Member does not happen to be one of them.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES: It is vouched for. This witness was picked out by the Committee to give evidence as being one of the most intelligent men in the district.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was really not material what the precise evidence was. He understood that the allegation was that evidence was given, and in consequence of that evidence being displeasing to the landlord the tenant was evicted or punished, and that all this had been brought before the Public Prosecutor. These were the circumstances which the hon. Member ought to be in a position to place before the House.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIESsaid, that the tenant's landlord was a banker, and that the tenant had overdrawn his account, and that he was peremptorily asked to settle it. The tenant was a schoolmaster, and the school was in the centre of his landlord's property, and he got notice from the School Board that he must give up his school. He had to do so, and also to give up his land, and he was prevented from living in a cottage on the estate. That, he thought, ought to be sufficient evidence for the Public Prosecutor. He wished to give some

  503
  examples of the statements this witness made before the Commission.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into details of this description. It is sufficient to say that the man's evidence caused eviction. The hon. Member is not entitled to convert this into a discussion on the relation between landlords and tenants.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that he desired to point out to the House the position in which they were. The Vote on Account had been discussed for a whole night in Committee, and for the greater part of another night. It had now been discussed on Report for two hours. Prom the nature of the case the number of possible subjects that could be dealt with on a Vote on Account was unlimited, because the Votes traversed the whole range of our Civil Service Estimates. No subject, therefore, was excluded from its purview, and it would be possible to have a discussion upon it which would last not for one night, but for 20 or 30 nights. But in his judgment the House ought to come to the conclusion that there must be some limit put to this discussion. [Cheers.] The old practice of the House was to confine to Supply the discussion of subjects arising on Supply, and on Votes on Account what was debated was the length of time which they should last. He confessed that now that the Government had made arrangements by which Supply was to be brought forward every Friday they might revert to the old practice to great advantage. As far as he could judge an adequate amount of time, taking the whole Vote together, had been given to the Vote, and he begged to move that the question be now put.
  *MR. KNOXasked, whether it was in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech in moving the Closure.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that, on a former occasion his predecessor had deprecated the practice, but had not
  504
  held it to be out of order. He hoped the House would now agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. CLARKcontended that there had never been a Vote on Account taken during the last 10 years on which a long discussion on some point had not been taken. This time last year the Report stage began at four o'clock and lasted the whole night, although the Committee stage had occupied a whole day. The only questions that had been discussed in this Vote related to foreign affairs, and there were many who desired to hear something as to the condition of affairs in Matabeleland.
  MR. LEWISsaid that many hon. Gentlemen had spoken on the other side of the House——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I was making no complaint of the Opposition. I only wish to point out that we cannot open up an unlimited field of discussion.
  MR. LEWISobserved that the other evening the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury undertook to give the Welsh Members facilities, and adjourned the discussion upon the particular question in Supply then under Debate in the House, two hours earlier. Of course, it was not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Members did not get the two hours for discussion on the question which had been before the House, neither was it the fault of the Welsh Members. They were now obliged to discuss this question at half-past four in the morning, and all they asked for was, that now they had been placed in this unfortunate position, they should have the opportunity and the right of discussing a question of deep and vital interest to thousands of tenant farmers in Wales, and if such a discussion was put an end to then he would ask the Speaker to allow them to divide against the Closure as a protest.
  MR. W. ALLENasked the First Lord of the

  505
  Treasury if he would put down the Colonial Office Vote for Thursday week. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY hoped to put the Colonial Office Vote on some day when there would be a larger attendance than there was likely to be on the first day of the re-assembling of Parliament after the holidays.
  DR. TANNER: Are you afraid of America?
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid, it seemed from the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he found some difficulty in making up his mind as to whether there had been intimidation in one case, and gave instructions that a special Inquiry should be made into it. He thought, under these circumstances, it must be plain to the House from the Debate upon this question, that the Witnesses Protection Act required alteration and strengthening. As a protest, and to bring out the depth of the sentiment of Wales on this question, he begged to move to reduce the Home Secretary's salary by £100.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment. I have put the question that the House agree with the Committee, and after I have put that question no Amendment can be moved.
  *MR. SPEAKERagain put the question, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,'' and declared the Ayes had it.
  DR. TANNER: On a point of order —[Cries of "Order!"]—I would ask you, Sir, whether, when any Member rising in his place asks for a reduction of the salary of any—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have already ruled upon that, and since then the question has been put.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MILITARY MANĥUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 13th April.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 13th April.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  TELEGRAPH [ADVANCES].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 13th April.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 9th April.
  DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 16th April.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [13th March] further adjourned till Friday 10th April.
  SOLICITORS' MAGISTRACY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 15th April.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 23rd April.
  FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 27th April.
  ESTATES TAIL ABOLITION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till This Day.
  GROUND GAME ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 15th April.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [18th March] further adjourned till Monday 13th April.
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 24th April.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 28th April.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 9th April.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Contributions made during the year ended August 1895 by Departments of State, other than the Education Department and the Science and Art Department, to the Funds of Public Elementary Schools, stating (a) the name and denomination of the schools with the school districts and counties in which they are situated; (b) the name of the contributory department; (c) the grounds on which the payments are made; and (d) whether payments are made annually, and, if so, since what date payments have been made."—(Mr. Henry J. Wilson.)

  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Dublin (College Green Division), v. Dr. Joseph Edward Kenny (Manor of Northstead).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. ALLENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the Votes that would be put down on the day the House re-assembled?
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office and Inland Revenue Votes and Class 1 with the exception of the Irish Votes.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether any Government Bill would be taken on the Thursday or Friday?
  MR. HANBURYwas understood to say not.
  DR. TANNERasked the right hon. Gentleman if there was any authority for the alarming reports that came to them from France this evening, in connection with the resignation of a very prominent member of the French Ministry and that war was threatened against England?
  [No answer was given.]
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock in the morning.