Sitting of 22 February 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill—
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE—who had an Amendment on the Paper to reject the Bill
  850
  —said he rose on that occasion, at the request of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, to put before the House the strong objections which they entertained against this Bill and several other railway Bills in progress. There were five railway Bills before the House this Session in which powers were taken with regard to societies which were more or less compulsory either on all classes or on some classes, in the employ of the companies. As to this particular Rill, the society was at present compulsory only on the clerks or salaried officers; but under the Act of which this was an amending Bill, it was possible for the company to make their society compulsory on all their servants. He was informed however, that the Great Eastern Company were prepared to confine the operation of the present Bill to their salaried officers, and in those circumstances it would not be necessary for him to divide the House on this Bill at least. The different Bills had been referred to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and he understood that that official had already reported on three of them in very strong terms, and those reports would be placed before the committees on the Bills. That being the case and as, necessarily, therefore, the reports of the Chief Registrar would come before the House on the report stage of the Bills and receive full consideration, his objections to the Second Readings would fall to the ground. The Chief Registrar had officially raised against the clause objected to the very points he had been prepared himself to bring forward. In 1889 there were some clauses in a private Bill similar to the clause objected to in the present Bill, and it was then found that there was a difficulty as to the men being heard. The railway servants took the view that they ought not to be prejudicially affected by compulsory clauses of this kind without being heard, and the clauses referred to should be struck out or the servants be given a hearing before the Committee. He was aware of certain facts which had raised a doubt both in 1889 and in 1890, as to whether they could show that they were affected in a way which would give them a locus before the Committee. Even supposing individual servants were able to appear, it was a very invidious thing to throw it upon individual servants of a

  851
  railway company. It would be far better that some of the societies which represented the railway servants should be allowed to appear on their behalf. In some societies the management was of a very despotic kind, and the fund was really in the hands of the railway company. He understood that as regarded the Bill now before them the Great Eastern had undertaken to insert words making it clear that this particular Bill only referred to salaried clerks and officers, and although it would still be the case that under their former powers they might include in their compulsory societies all the servants of the company, yet he felt he could not press, on the present Bill, an objection going to the original legislation already sanctioned by the House. Therefore, he should accept the proposal of the company. Perhaps it might be convenient if the Chairman of Committees would tell the House what was the usual course in regard to these Bills, as the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were very anxious both that the reports of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies should be fully brought before the Committee, and that, if possible, they should be given some representation before the Select Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that, as regarded the Bill now before the House, he was prepared to undertake that the reports to which the right hon. Baronet had referred should come before the Committee before whom the Bill went. If by any chance the Bill was unopposed then it would come before him, and he should most thoroughly go into the report from the Registrar General. He should also have to inform the House how that report had been dealt with, and therefore the House would be seized of whatever was done, whether by himself or by the Select Committee. The right hon. Baronet might therefore rest assured that the matter would come clearly before the Committee. He was informed by the Great Eastern Railway Company that in this Bill they never intended for a moment to go beyond the class of servants who were dealt with in the Act of 1878.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that was so, but he was informed that the provisions of that Act, although they had
  852
  been used only for salaried servants, might be extended so as to include all classes of servants.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the company did not intend, in this Bill, to apply its provisions to any other class of servants but those to which the provisions of the Act of 1878 had been made applicable. They had undertaken, in the enacting part of clause 34, to insert words which would make it perfectly clear that the clause was only for salaried officers and salaried servants. The other question as regarded the locus standi of particular bodies did not arise on this matter.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill—
  *SIR C. DILKE—who had given notice of a Motion for its rejection—said that this case was a little different, but he had an undertaking from the company which appeared to meet the matter. The objection of the Amalgamated Society was that it further extended the operation of the company's provident fund to persons who, as they said, had no desire to contribute, having already made provision for benefits outside the company. As he understood, the railway company were prepared to meet their point. The servants also objected on the ground that, if obliged to leave the company's service, they forfeited, in some cases the whole, and in others a great portion of the money which had been deducted from their wages. The company had informed him that they were willing to limit the clause by the insertion of the words "subject to their consent," and it would be for the Committee to consider whether these words would meet the case. In this case, however, he would ask the Chairman of Committees whether he did not think it would be wise to give some such locus as he asked for in the last case. It certainly would be a great satisfaction to the Amalgamated Society to feel that in a case of this sort they might be heard before the Committee, and although he did not press his objection to the Second Reading he would ask the Chairman of

  853
  Committees whether he did not think this was a case where a locus should be given to the society.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that, as the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to press his Motion, he did not know whether he ought to give an opinion. At all events he would give a very guarded one. The Instruction which stood in the name of the right hon. Baronet seemed to be a very wide one indeed, and rather a dangerous one for the House to accept without very full consideration. The House had drawn up in one of its Standing Orders a list of societies and associations to whom it was prepared to grant a locus standi in certain cases, and he thought it would require a very strong case indeed on the part of any society or association not included in that list if it wanted to obtain a locus. The right hon. Gentleman's Instruction might open the door to a great number of people who were not in any way interested in the company to appear on the company's Bill. He thought the Instruction was one which should be very jealously watched and carefully guarded before it was assented to by the House.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid he thought that House ought to be very careful in doing anything which would discourage such arrangements as these between employers and employed. There was no doubt that immense benefits had accrued where there had been arrangements of this kind for providing schemes of thrift for old age and sickness and so on, and he thought it was a pity that for fear of doing anything to offend, or to appear to offend, some of the extreme views of trade unionists, they would not be able in future to say distinctly that it certainly was beneficial that in these large corporations like railway companies there should be every facility given for enabling the workpeople and the employers to come together and make arrangements of this sort. He could conceive no better way of promoting harmony between the employers and employed than this. They must not let it go out of that House that, for political reasons, the House was afraid to let the companies do for their workpeople what they might do for their salaried officers. The plain political language of that was that the
  854
  clerks were a small and insignificant political body, and that the workpeople were a large one, but he held that what was good for one was good for the other.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to have missed the whole point of those who had raised the question on that side of the House. There was no objection to these benefit societies, but the whole point was whether they were going to give the directors of the company power to make rules and regulations, and to manipulate these funds as they thought proper, without consulting the workpeople who contributed probably two-thirds of the money. That was a proceeding which, he said, should not be encouraged by that House. All that was asked was that the men should have the same voice in the control and administration of the funds as was proposed to be given to the directors.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

COVENTRY ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Ordered, That, in the case of the Coventry Electric Tramways Bill, Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now Read a Second time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
*SIR C. DILKEhad given notice of the following Motion:—
"That all Petitions praying to be heard against Clauses 48 and 49 of the Bill, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto, presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; and that the Petitioners may be heard by themselves, their Counsel and Agents on their Petition against the Bill."
He said: As our case is stronger against the other two Bills than is our case against this Bill, and as we have from the company an offer of compromise, which is meant to be sufficient, though we are not quite satisfied that it is, I think I had better reserve my Motion until the other Bills come on.
Bill read a Second time.

QUESTIONS

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Bill for the exclusion of the goods made in the prisons of other countries promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and if he will take care to press it forward sufficiently early in the Session to avoid its being shelved for want of time, having regard to the refusal of Foreign Governments to enter into an agreement for the non-exportation of such goods?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given. We shall be very glad to introduce the Bill as soon as the condition of public business offers a prospect of our being able to proceed with it.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice that, to make sure, I will to-morrow ask leave to introduce a Bill myself.

  MAIL PACKET SERVICE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. D. NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has come to any decision on the subject of the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the mail packet service to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and if he could conveniently communicate same at an early date to the House?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Upon consideration of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee referred to by the hon. Member, it has been decided to place a sum of £5,450 on the West Highlands and Islands (Public Works) Vote for the purpose of subsidising mail steamers on the West Coast of Scotland, and £3,225 for the Orkney and Shetland services. The arrangements consequent on the reduction of this Vote will not come into operation until the 1st of October next, and, as they still form the subject of consideration, I am not in a position to state them in detail.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION (DEVON AND CORNWALL).
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the urgent need, as disclosed by the Report of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation of 1884, of harbour accommodation available at all tides on the North Cornish and North Devon coasts for fishing and local trading purposes, and to the impossibility of providing such accommodation entirely from local sources, if he is not prepared to undertake the larger schemes recommended by the Committee, he will favourably consider this special case?
  MR. RITCHIE: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to undertake to construct or to assist by grants commercial and fishing harbour works in England. As the hon. Member is aware, loans can be obtained from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under certain conditions. However, if any special circumstances are brought under my notice they will receive my careful consideration.

  WELSH LAND COMMISSION (REPORT).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the unanimous recommendation of the Welsh Land Commissioners that portions of their Report should be translated into Welsh and published officially in that language; whether he has considered the suggestion of the Commissioners that the determination of the parts of the Report which it is most desirable to translate into Welsh should be left to a Committee of the Commission acting in conjunction with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and whether, in view of the fact that without such a translation the Report cannot reach a large proportion of the Welsh population specially interested in it, he will take the necessary steps to provide the Welsh translation recommended?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am aware of the recommendation referred to by the hon. Member, and have had it under consideration. The cost of this Commission

  857
  has already been extremely heavy, and any proposals involving additional expenditure will have to be very carefully weighed. I am in communication, however, with the chairman of the Commission as to the nature and bulk of the extracts which the Commission thought might with advantage be translated; and when I have obtained this information from him, I will communicate again with the Treasury.

  HALF-SOVEREIGNS AND FARTHINGS.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent loss inflicted on shopkeepers and others by the similarity betwixt half-sovereigns and farthings, especially in gas light; and whether he would take into consideration some alteration in the design of the farthing in future coining, so as to make error and consequent loss avoidable?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No recent case has been brought to the knowledge of the Mint such as that described in the Question. As I pointed out in my reply to a Question put to me on February 25th last on this subject, there is an obvious difference between the farthing and the half-sovereign—[a laugh]—the former having a smooth, plain edge, and the latter a milled one. The reverse has an entirely different design—St. George and the Dragon in the case of the half-sovereign, Britannia in the case of the farthing. In addition the latter coin has the word "Farthing" engraved in conspicuous letters upon it. It appears, therefore, that error and consequent loss can be easily avoided by the use of ordinary care. I have considered some suggestions for a change, but have not been satisfied with any of them.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid that it was within his knowledge that the mistake had been made three times in the course of business by one person. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that by treating the metal with sulphur before issue the colour might be changed and the error prevented?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I went into that matter some little time ago.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (METROPOLIS)
  DR. FARQUHARSON,: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House how many children suffering from scarlet fever, smallpox, and diphtheria have been removed from the Metropolitan pauper schools to the care of the Metropolitan Asylums Board during the year 1896, and what has been the cost of each of these patients per week, including interest on and repayment of capital charges. And can he also give the names of the schools which have respectively furnished the patients suffering from these diseases?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board has been informed by the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District that during the year 1896, 275 children suffering from scarlet fever and 15 from diphtheria, were removed from Poor Law Schools in the Metropolis (including two certified schools) to asylums of the Managers. There were no cases of small-pox. The schools from which children were removed were the separate schools of Islington, Hackney, Strand, Holborn, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, St. George's-in-the-East, Lambeth, and Westminster, and the schools of the Kensington and Chelsea, Central London, Forest Gate, and North Surrey School Districts. Children were also removed from the Exmouth Training Ship and from the North Hyde and St. Agnes' Orphanage certified schools. The Managers further inform the Board that it is not possible to state with precision what has been the cost of each patient per week, but that the average cost may be put at about 21s. per week per patient—this sum including maintenance and common charges.

  EMPLOYMENT OF DEAF MUTE (BELFAST).
  COLONEL McCALMONT,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Stephens, a deaf mute, who has been compelled to leave his employment in the foundry works of Messrs. Combe, Barbour, and Combe, in Belfast, through the action of the Inspector of Factories,

  859
  the reason assigned being that the work was dangerous on account of the boy's deafness. And whether there is anything in the Factory and Workshops Act prohibiting the employment of a deaf and dumb boy, over 14 years of age, in a place where there is machinery; if not, whether he will acquaint the firm in question that they are at liberty to afford the boy an opportunity of earning his livelihood?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case. No child or young person under the age of 16 can be employed in a factory, either among machinery or elsewhere, unless he be certified as fit for employment in that factory by the certifying surgeon. In the present case, the certificate has been refused so far as work near machinery is concerned, but granted as regards file cutting. I cannot undertake the responsibility of interfering with the discretion of the surgeon in such a matter. It is obvious that in certain circumstances the employment of a deaf mute near machinery might be attended with serious danger.

  HORSE-BREEDING COMMISSION (DUBLIN).
  COLONEL McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence that has been given before the Horse-breeding Commission in Dublin, and made public, as to the harm that is being done to the horse-breeding industry in Ireland, their hackney stallions are to serve again during the coming season, or whether the Government intend to recommend the Board to discontinue its operations in connection with horse-breeding and to apply the money to purposes more generally useful to the congested population for whom it was intended?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I understand that different opinions have been expressed by witnesses already examined before the Horse-breeding Commission in Dublin, some having been in favour of the introduction of the hackney strain and others against. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Commission has not yet completed its labours or
  860
  made its report, I cannot but think that my hon. and gallant Friend, on further consideration, will agree with me that it would be in any case premature at the present stage to take any action such as he suggests. I may add that this is a matter entirely for the Congested Districts Board to decide, and that the Government could not usefully take up the position of official adviser to the Board?
  COLONEL McCALMONT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the evidence of probably the best witness before the Commission, in which he stated that if the Government wished to destroy the horse-breeding industry in Ireland they could not set about it in a better way than this?
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, was there not a large amount of evidence in favour of the hackney strain?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, but I think it is not desirable to anticipate the report of the Commission.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Commission reports against the continued use of the hackney strain will the Government appoint a second Commission to revise the decision of the first, as was done in case of the Financial Relations Committee?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask, is it a fact that the evidence from County Cork was almost unanimous against the introduction of the hackney strain?
  *MR. SPEAKER: These questions are, after the answer given, altogether irregular.

  LOAN FUND SOCIETIES (IRELAND).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a second clerk to a loan fund society is now in Sligo Gaol on a charge of embezzling £600 of the society's capital; if he can explain how a second clerk could obtain control over so large a sum without the collusion of other officers; and whether the Loan Fund Board will hold a searching inquiry into the matter?
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the second clerk of the Belcoo Loan Fund Society is at present confined in Sligo Gaol on a charge of embezzling £600 of the loan fund; (2) whether there is any explanatian of the circumstances under which a sum, amounting to one-fourth of the entire capital of the loan fund society, has disappeared without the knowledge of the first clerk, the committee, and the trustees; and (3) whether the Loan Fund Board have held, or propose to hold, an inquiry into the working of this society?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph of the Question of the right hon. Member for East Donegal, and of the similar Question standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal. The Loan Fund Board are not in possession of any evidence showing that there was collusion between the accused and any other official connected with the society; but I have no doubt the whole of the facts will be fully investigated on behalf of the Board at the trial of the accused, and pending such investigation it is undesirable to discuss the case further from this aspect. The Board inform me that they will continue their inquiry as to these frauds and into the circumstances leading to them.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the loan fund system in Ireland has yet been laid before the Irish Government; and, if not, when it is likely to be ready; and whether, having regard to the abuses, malversation, and oppression connected with the system, which have been repeatedly admitted by the Chief Secretary in his replies to Questions addressed to him in the House of Commons, this Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report in question has been submitted to the Government. It is still under the consideration of the Loan Fund Board, who are in consultation with their legal adviser on the subject. A reasonable
  862
  time must be allowed to enable the Board to come to a decision as to the course they propose to adopt in connection with the presentation of the Report. In the meantime I will ask the hon. Member not to press the Question put in the second paragraph.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M. MCCARTHY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to serious defalcations and frauds on the part of the late senior clerk of the Edgwarthstown Loan Fund Society, the Loan Fund Board in Dublin dissolved that society about a year ago; whether the books of the society were regularly inspected by the loan fund inspector, who failed to perceive irregularities in the accounts, and expressed no disapproval of the system of management; and whether, having regard to the fact that, owing to the dissolution of the society and the difficulty of collecting outstanding debts by a receiver who now desires to be relieved of his duties, the debenture holders are likely to be heavy losers, any relief or compensation will be given to them for the loss of securities through defalcations and frauds which the inspector of the Loan Fund Board, a body constituted by statute, and whose officers are Government officials, failed, from negligence or other cause, to detect for a long period of time?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred this Question to the Loan Fund Board for a Report as to the facts, but not having yet received the Report, I regret to be obliged to ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question till Tomorrow. As regards, however, the concluding words of the Question, I must point out that neither the officers of the Loan Fund Board nor of the local societies working in connection with that Board are, in any sense of the word, Civil Servants of the Crown, and that Government exercises no control whatever over the proceedings of the Board or of the local bodies.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT).
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the personal clerks employed in the offices of the Official Receivers in

  863
  Bankruptcy and Companies (Winding-up), the temporary architect, assistant surveyors, draughtsmen, and accountant clerks in the Director of Works and Works Loan Departments of the Admiralty, the legal assistants now employed in the several solicitors' departments of the Civil Service in lieu of permanent clerks formerly employed, and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his Reply to a Question addressed to him on 12th May last, are respectively employed temporarily in respect of possessing technical or professional qualifications; and, if so, why they are not included in the Return, No. 359, presented on 11th August last; and whether the said Return includes all persons employed temporarily in the Civil Service in respect of possessing technical or professional qualifications whose salaries are payable out of an annual lump sum allowance made to the head of the department; and, if not, whether he will agree to furnish a Supplementary Return which shall include all such persons?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The persons mentioned as being employed in the Admiralty are employed by the day, and were therefore expressly excluded from the Return. The others are employed and paid by heads of departments out of lump sums granted to them, and are not employed, temporarily or otherwise, in the Civil Service. They are, therefore, also properly excluded from the Return.

  HYDE PARK (CYCLISTS).
  MR. CHARLES McLAREN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, after having observed the results of opening Hyde Park to cyclists up to twelve o'clock, he is now prepared to extend the period for cycling to one o'clock; and, whether he can hold out any hope of reserving the Serpentine Drive, or some other little-used roadway, for the exclusive use of cyclists within certain hours?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): No, Sir; I cannot accede to the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's Question.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he will be able to restore to the public the privilege of approaching the Houses of Parliament through Westminster Hall?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The existing arrangements for the admission of the public into Westminster Hall have been made after consultation with the authorities who have charge of the approaches to the Houses of Parliament, and it is not intended to make any change at present. The restrictions preventing the public from entering Westminster Hall were last year modified, and the public are now admitted by the south end at such times of the day as the House is not sitting.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, if it is brought to his knowledge that the Great Southern and Western Railway officials are willing that the fast mail from Dublin should be stopped at Mallow Junction, and that they are prepared to forward at once the mails and passengers to Killarney and Tralee as well as to Fermoy and Lismore, he will, on the part of the Post Office, consent to such an arrangement being carried out as soon as possible?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General would, of course, be prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals received from the railway company as regards the mails for Killarney and Tralee, but until he is acquainted with the full details of such proposals he is not in a position to say whether he will be able to assent to them.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the only station in the South of Ireland at which the mail trains of the Great Southern and Western Company now stop is Limerick Junction; and whether, in view of the importance of Mallow Junction as a centre of railway communication with the large districts of Cork and Kerry, arrangements will be made in the new time table for a stoppage at this station instead of at Maryborough or Kildare?
  MR. HANBURY: The mail trains between Dublin and Cork stop at Kildare, Maryborough, and Limerick Junction. The discontinuance of the stop at either Kildare or Maryborough would give rise to serious public inconvenience and complaint, but the question of arranging for a stop at Mallow in addition to the present stops is being carefully considered in connection with the revision of the time table consequent on the acceleration of the mail service between England and Ireland. The decision, however, will partly depend on the Company being able to increase the speed of the train so as to insure that the arrival at Cork shall not be retarded by the stop, and by the Company's readiness to put on trains to and from Tralee in connection with the mail, as without such trains the stop would be useless, and the Post Office would not be justified in paying for special trains for the service.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the chief object of the accelerated mail service between Dublin and Cork was not to benefit the South of Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper is a precise one about a very small local detail. It is not a general question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I point out, with great respect, that although this matter appears to be one of mere local interest, it forms part of a very important national question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is exactly what I said did not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, S. (Mr. E. BARRY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps will be taken for the dispatch of the night mails on their arrival in Dublin, instead of allowing them to remain there for hours according to the present system; and whether any arrangement will be made for the delivery in London and other English business centres of the morning mails from Dublin at such an hour as to enable correspondents to reply by the evening mail, thereby considerably accelerating the transit of letters to and from England?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. As I stated on the 15th instant, very strong pressure has been brought to bear upon the Postmaster General by Irish representatives to fix, not an earlier, but a later hour for the departure from Dublin of the day mail to England, which of course carries the night mails from the Irish provinces, and it is to meet this desire that the Department, with some reluctance, fixed 7.10 a.m. instead of 6.40 a.m. as the hour of departure of the English day mail from Dublin. As the time of arrival in London and all other places in England will, under the acceleration, be the same as at present, the existing arrangements for delivery will remain unaltered.

  DERRY CORPORATION STOCK.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the resolutions passed by the Derry Corporation on Tuesday last relating to the issue of stock, which depart in several material respects from the forms prescribed by the Order in Council; whether these resolutions in particular do not say when the stock is to be issued or at what time or in what manner it is to be paid for, and provide for the payment of a half-year's dividend on 1st July even if there should be some months' delay in the issue; whether the resolution purporting to fix the price only fixes a minimum price, and does not direct how the actual price of issue is to be ascertained; and whether, under the circumstances, the resolutions are effectual for their purpose?
  The HON. MEMBER further asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a statement by the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Derry Corporation that the Corporation could not issue stock on as favourable terms as English Corporations, owing to the nature of the regulations made by the Irish Local Government Board; and whether the Local Government Board will consider the advisability of altering any regulations which may have had this effect?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Town Clerk reports

  867
  that the statement ascribed to the Chairman of the Finance Committee is substantially correct, but that its meaning and purport are not quite accurately represented in the first paragraph of the Question, and further that the Corporation are advised by counsel that they have acted within their powers in passing the resolution which they have passed. The regulations of the Irish Local Government Board are practically identical with those framed by the Local Government Board in England. No change in their form is desirable. The proceedings of the Municipal Authorities are not under the supervision of the Local Government Board, or any other department of the Executive. The creation and issues by the Corporation of their stock in conformity with the law is a matter of their own concern, and I therefore beg to decline to express any opinion on the legal point mentioned in the third paragraph, on which they have apparently received advice.

  AUSTRALIAN MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, concurrently with the acceleration of the sea carriage of the Australian mails by four days under the new contract, any steps are in contemplation to improve the overland transit of these mails from Naples and Brindisi to London, with a view to the avoidance of the delays that occur from time to time on this section, and occasion considerable inconvenience to business men?
  MR. HANBURY: Although the question of acceleration of Australian mails across the continent of Europe has no connection whatever with that of increasing the speed at sea, the hon. Member may rest assured that the train service through France and Italy is most carefully watched by the Post Office, and that no opportunity of obtaining an improvement has been lost or will be lost in the future. The outward mails, for the land conveyance of which the Postmaster General pays, are invariably carried by special train whether to Brindisi or to Naples; but the homeward mails, for the land conveyance of which the Colonies pay, though carried by special train from Brindisi in one
  868
  week, are carried by ordinary train from Naples in the other week. This cheaper means of transport is, of course, somewhat slower, and occasionally there have been delays from causes that do not arise in the special service. It is believed that the Colonies would be unwilling to face the expense of a special service from Naples to Calais; but when, occasionally, delay occurs in the ordinary service, representations are made to the French or Italian Post Office, as the case may be; and the service is considered to work well on the whole.

  ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before taking Supply on Navy Estimates, he will furnish for the information of Members, a memorandum respecting the Officers of Royal Marine Artillery, stating the nature of examinations for candidates for commissions; the subsequent courses of study, instruction, training, and examination of these officers from the date of passing the entrance examination to the completion of their training at headquarters, Eastney; the time occupied in each such course of education and training, and the subjects in which they have to qualify at the examinations during and at the end of each such course of education and training; and further stating the nature of artillery, or gunnery, and torpedo duties assigned by Admiralty regulations, or by custom, to each rank of Officer of Royal Marine Artillery when serving afloat and with Naval forces on shore respectively?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I cannot undertake to complete the elaborate Memorandum suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend before taking the Estimates. Much of the information he asks for is quite accessible to him and to the public, but I will examine to what extent I can meet his wishes.

  TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT BARCELONA.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received

  869
  any confirmation of the report that torture was applied to several prisoners in the fortress of Montjuich, Barcelona, during December 1896; and whether any of the sufferers are British subjects; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations to the Spanish Government on the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. G. CURZON,): Beyond a newspaper report which was sent to me by the hon. Member, we have heard nothing of the matter alluded to. If any evidence reaches us indicating that British subjects have been injured, of course, we should inquire.

  AMERICAN PASSENGER TRAFFIC. (POLICE AT QUEENSTOWN.)
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that steerage passengers landing from British bound American liners at Queenstown are cross-examined by the Royal Irish Constabulary as to their names, occupations, American addresses, destinations in Ireland, length of their proposed stay, the names of those they are going to visit, address, etc., and that passengers embarking at Queenstown are obliged to show their tickets to detective officers going on board; whether he is aware that this practice is generally complained of by tourists, and is seriously injuring the Irish tourist traffic because, in consequence of it, tourists prefer to land in and embark from British ports; and whether he will confine this action of the police to persons whom they may reasonably suspect of the commission of crime or intention to commit crime?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the practice of the police to invite passengers at Queenstown to give their names and places of destination, and passengers have cordially co-operated with the police in giving this information. It is not the fact, however, that passengers are interrogated as to the other particulars mentioned in the Question, nor is it true that passengers embarking at Queenstown are required to show their tickets to detective officers. When, however, the police have reason to believe that a particular passenger is
  870
  an absconding criminal or a fugitive from justice, such person would no doubt be asked to exhibit his ticket. No complaints have been made to the police on the subject, nor is there any ground whatever for the suggestion that the tourist traffic has been injured in consequence of the police inquiries which I have indicated.

  FISHERY PIER (BALTIMORE).
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received a memorial from the Skibbereen and Baltimore Harbour Board relative to the construction of a fishery pier at Baltimore; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the line of railway from Skibbereen to Baltimore, made for the purpose of promoting the fishing industry at a cost of £56,000, is practically useless for that purpose owing to the want of a suitable pier, he will grant the prayer of the memorial, and request the Treasury to advance the money necessary for its construction?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The memorial referred to in the first part of the Question has been received. The memorial does not allege that the line of railway from Skibbereen to Baltimore, constructed at a cost of £56,000 under the Act of 1889, is practically useless to promote the fishing industry. The memorialists, on the contrary, took the opportunity of expressing their acknowledgments of the boon conferred upon the district by the Government, whilst at the same time expressing their desire that a deep water pier should be constructed, and the existing line of railway extended to the pier. The Congested Districts Board some few years ago were prepared to contribute towards the cost of the construction of a pier at Baltimore on terms which were communicated to the Baltimore Railway Company. It does not appear, however, that the latter company agreed to the terms of this offer; and, although the Congested Districts Board do not now consider themselves bound by the offer formerly made by them, yet, if the Railway Company and the Harbour Board could come to an understanding with the Board in the matter, the question of a contribution would be again considered.

  MASSEREENE ESTATE (POLICE PROTECTION).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) will he explain why a district inspector, a head constable, a mounted constable, and two protection huts are still maintained in connection with the Massereene estate; (2) what is the annual cost of this establishment; and (3) whether any outrage has been committed in connection with the Massereene evicted farms?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police arrangements referred to in the first paragraph are necessary for the efficient protection of new tenants on the Massereene estate. It has been found practicable to make a substantial reduction in the number of police employed on this duty on the estate since the adoption of special protective measures some years ago. Overt acts of outrage, as well as acts of boycotting and intimidation, have been committed from time to time in connection with the occupation of evicted farms on the estate, and many more would doubtless have been committed were it not for the supervision exercised by the police and the protection given to the persons and property of the new tenants. The annual cost of the police referred to in the Question amounts to about £1,436, no portion of which is charged to the district.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any Report has yet been received from the Commissioners appointed by him to visit the University Colleges which receive a Government grant; and (2), if so, whether there is any prospect of these colleges, or any of them, receiving an augmented grant in the next financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to the first Question is, Yes. My hon. Friend will find an additional Grant of £9,500 in the Civil Service Estimates.

  PARCELS POST (INLAND).
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the average distance or the approximate average distance that parcels are conveyed by the Inland Parcels Post of Great Britain and Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no precise information as to the average distance over which inland parcels are conveyed. It has never been considered necessary to obtain this information, and it would involve much trouble and expense to do so.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA (S. E. ESSEX).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Purleigh, in South-east Essex; and whether he will consider the possibility of isolation instead of slaughter when there has only been a case of contact and not disease?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am, of course, aware of the unfortunate outbreak of pleuro-pueumonia to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I regret that it is not possible for me to adopt the suggestion which he is good enough to make. Experience has amply shown that unless animals which have been exposed to infection are forthwith slaughtered there is no probability of the extirpation of the disease, and as a matter of fact one of the animals slaughtered at Purleigh was found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia of long standing.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the cases of pleuro-pneumonia which have occurred in Essex originated in that county; if not, to what locality their origin has been traced; and whether similar measures will be taken to prevent the importation of disease from one part of the kingdom to another, as have been applied to Canadian cattle?
  *MR. WALTER LONG: Inquiries are still proceeding as to the origin of the cases of pleuro-pneumonia to which the hon. Member refers. There is some ground for believing that the affected

  873
  animals may have been brought over from Ireland, but although a considerable number of cattle have been slaughtered by the Irish authorities at the places from which they are said to have come, no case of disease has been discovered. The Board have full power to prevent the importation of disease from one part of the kingdom to another, but there is practically uniformity of administration in these matters throughout the United Kingdom, and there is no necessity for our taking any measures in this direction under existing conditions.

  DEATH OF A POST OFFICE SERVANT.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING:: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Post Office authorities has been called to the case of Miss Annie Jane Maxted, appointed six months ago as an assistant or clerk to the department, then pronounced healthy and strong, compelled as a condition to appointment to be re-vaccinated, suffered in consequence it is stated for six months, terminating in death on the 2nd instant; whether there is any authority by statute to enforce the above condition; whether it is ordered by the department assuming the power; and whether, while the recommendations of the Royal Commission are unconsidered by Parliament, the order will be continued?
  MR. HANBURY: The attention of the Postmaster General has been called to the case of Miss Maxted, but the facts are not as represented by the hon. Member. Miss Maxted was not pronounced healthy and strong six months ago; on the contrary, the Medical Officer who examined her reported that she was not strong, and was suffering from an enlargement of the superficial cervical glands of the neck. The cause of her death is certified to have been Lymphadenoma (Hodgkin's disease), and as a secondary cause Dermato Melasma suprarenale (Addison's disease), and neither of these resulted from the re-vaccination. Revaccination as a condition of appointment in the Post Office is enforced, not by statute, but by Post Office Regulation. The Regulation has been in force since 1863, and, in view of the remark-
  874
  able immunity from small pox enjoyed by Post Office servants under this Regulation, it is not proposed to alter it.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury I shall draw attention to this Question on the Estimates.

  NAVAL PENSIONER (JOHN DEVINE).
  MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Naval Pensioner John Devine, of County Leitrim, is now an inmate in Sligo District Lunatic Asylum; is he aware that Devine, though discharged a physical and mental wreck, held the highest testimonials from his superior officers for honourable and efficient service; that he had been accustomed before his discharge to send his mother, Anne Devine, of Clonagh, County Leitrim, £2 per month out of his pay; and that the Governors of Sligo Asylum waived their claim against the pension of Devine, charging the amount so remitted on the local rates, and appealed to the Admiralty to pay the grant in aid without deducting it from the pension in order that the whole pension should go to Devine's mother, who has no other means of subsistence; is he aware that but for the generosity of the Asylum Governors, Mrs. Devine would now be an inmate of the local workhouse; and will he see that the pension of this man, who lost his mental and bodily health in Her Majesty's Service, is paid in full to his mother?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): John Devine was discharged for general paralysis of the insane, constitutional, and not in any way due to his service in the Marines. The amount for which the Governors of the Sligo Asylum have waived their claim is £8 per annum. A deduction of £10 8s. a year from the man's pension is required to be made under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1887, on account of the Government contribution in aid of his maintenance. The full amount of the pension could, however, be paid to the mother on a certificate being furnished by the Governors of the Asylum that no claim for the Government grant will be made in this case.

  NAVAL COLLEGE, DARTMOUTH.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the land which was intended for the site of the Naval College at Dartmouth forms part of an estate in Chancery; whether the legal conditions render the exercise of their compulsory powers of purchase by the Admiralty undesirable; and, whether reconsideration will be given to the desirable sites which exist on the Southampton Water?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second in the negative. My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that there is no occasion for the Admiralty to reconsider their decision on the question of site.

  JAMESON RAID (PRESIDENT KRUGER'S CLAIM).
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether President Kruger's claim for the raid is £1,000,000 in all, or £1,677,000?
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received from the High Commissioner's representative at Cape Town the full details of the claim of the South African Republic in regard to the late raid; and, if so, will he communicate them to the House; and, whether the claim is specifically made against Her Majesty's Government, or against certain corporations and companies holding property in the Transvaal or elsewhere in South Africa?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information beyond the telegram which I read to the House on Thursday last, but I shall be happy to lay the claim on the Table when the documents reach me.

  MARYBOROUGH GAOL (JAMES FITZHARRIS).
  MR. J. L. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I
  876
  beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Fitzharris, a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, is lying dangerously ill, and that the doctor has stated his condition to he critical; and, whether, seeing that the prisoner has been in penal servitude for 14 years and would be entitled under the prison rules to a revision of his sentence in 12 months more, and as the prisoner is over 70 years of age, will he advise the Lord Lieutenant, to order his liberation?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This convict is not dangerously ill, nor is it the fact that the doctor has at any time stated his condition to be critical. The convict's age, according to the prison records, is 57, not 70 years. It does not come within my province to advise the Lord Lieutenant to order the discharge of a convict, but, of course, it is open to the prisoner to memoralise the Lord Lieutenant on the subject in the usual way.
  MR. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Joseph Mullet, a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, who was convicted in April 1883, has been suffering four years from weakness of lungs and chest; and, whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to order his liberation?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that convict Mullet has been suffering for several years from weakness of the lungs and chest, but his affection is not of an acute nature, and his health, on the whole, is better now than it was some years before his removal to Maryborough Prison. The observations I have made in reply to the latter part of the preceding Question apply equally to the suggestion at the end of this Question.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I ask whether these are not two of the Phœnix Park murderers?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: One is, I believe.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the Home Office, allow an independent, doctor to see these men and report, upon their condition?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If a memorial is sent by the prisoners their cases will be considered.

  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING (TOTTENHAM).
  *MR. J. HOWARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the report of the inquest on Walter Calvert, who was killed on 3rd February last when passing over the level crossing at Park Station, Tottenham, and also the finding of the jury that the footbridge should be altered so that it could be reached from the platforms instead of from outside the station; whether he has received a Petition, numerously signed by residents in the neighbourhood, asking the assistance of the Board of Trade to insure the safety of the public; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; I have seen the report of the inquest, and also received the Petition referred to. I propose to communicate with the Company, and ask them whether they can alter the footbridge, so that it can be reached from the platforms; but the Board cannot make any order to that effect. I gather from the report of the inquest that the unfortunate man crossed the line, although there are notices in the station cautioning people not to do so.

  BALLYSHANNON UNION (CLERK'S SALARY).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have considered a proposed increase of £30 a year in the salary of the clerk to the Ballyshannon Union for keeping the keys of the waterworks; and whether, before sanctioning this increase, they will take into consideration the fact that there was no public notice before the clerk was appointed caretaker of the waterworks, the clerk undertaking the work without payment?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A proposal has been made to allow a gratuity of £30 to the Clerk of the Union for his services in connection with the Waterworks since the year 1892, and this proposal is now receiving the consideration of the Local Government Board. There is no proposal before the Board to increase the Clerk's salary.

  SCHOOLS OF SCIENCE AND ART (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what was the actual expenditure in Ireland out of the Votes for the Department of Science and Art in 1893–4, 1894–5, and 1895–6, respectively; and (2) what was the actual expenditure in Ireland in the same years out of Sub-head D of that Vote (Schools of Science and Art)?
  MR. HANBURY: This Question should properly have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. In his absence, I may say that the answer to the first paragraph is £43,505, £45,837, and £46,109, and the answer to the second paragraph £8,194, £8,408, and £7,390.

  EDUCATION FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the correspondence at pages 386 to 389 of the Appropriation Accounts, what course the Treasury propose to take to settle the point of law raised by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland as to the unexpended balance of the fee grant; and whether, to avoid such difficulties in future, the Irish fee grant will be voted for 1897–8, and subsequent years, as a grant in aid, in accordance with Section 18 of the Irish Education Act, 1892?
  MR. HANBURY: If the hon. Member will read the Treasury letter which closed the correspondence, he will see that there is no point of law which requires to be settled. There is no need and no intention to change the present system.
  MR. KNOXwas understood to ask whether the Treasury received money from the National Education Department.
  MR. HANBURYwas understood to assent.

  CABLE (CANADA TO AUSTRALIA).
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that it is stated, on the alleged authority of a member of the Pacific Cable Commission, that the cable from Canada to Australia would touch only at Fanning Island, Fiji, and Norfolk Island; whether he is in a position to state that this is the route recommended by the Commission; and whether he can approximately indicate the date on which

  879
  he hopes to be able to lay the Report of the Commission upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give any information as to the recommendations of the Committee, or to state when their Report will be published, for the reason which I gave in reply to a previous Question on the subject on the 28th of last month.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the present National School system in Ireland requires an average attendance of seventy pupils in order to secure the services of an assistant teacher; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule injures the efficiency of many schools, consideration will be given to the desirability of reducing the average number to sixty?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I fear I cannot at present add anything to the replies which I gave to the Questions put to me on the 2nd and 4th inst. on this subject by the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. J. C. Flynn).

  MURDER ON LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. JAMES BAILEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet considered the advisability, or otherwise, of offering a reward for any information that may lead to the arrest of the murderer of Miss Camp?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It has been the rule at the Home Office for many years not to offer rewards in these cases, and I have no reason to suppose that there is any ground for departing from this rule on the present occasion.

  MILITARY WORKS BILL.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what amount of the money to be raised under the Military Works Bill is wanted for defraying costs of works already incurred since the 31st March 1896?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As far as can at present be estimated, about £86,000 will be required for work executed during this financial year.

  POST OFFICE (KIRKCALDY).
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Town Council of Kirkcaldy have unanimously passed a resolution declaring that it is desirable that the site of the proposed new post office should be in High Street; and whether before any definite decision is made in the matter, due attention will be paid to this expression of local opinion?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that the Town Council of Kirkcaldy have passed a resolution declaring that it is desirable that the new Post Office for that town should be in the High Street, and he would be glad if their desire could be gratified. Full inquiry, however, has been made, and I regret to say that no suitable site in that street can be obtained at anything like the cost which the amount of the business would justify.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to that matter on the Estimates.

  SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in the issue of the Navy Estimates; and can he state when they will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. MACARTNEY: There has been no unusual delay in issuing the Navy Estimates. During the last ten years they have only been issued on two occasions in the month of February—on the 25th and 27th of that month. It is hoped that they will be in the hands of Members on Monday, March 1st.
  MR. DALZIEL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the established custom, if not absolutely the rule of the House, that Navy Estimates should be issued within ten days of the setting up of Supply?
  MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir.
  MR. DALZIEL: It is.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman refers to the circulation of the Navy Estimates.

  POST OFFICE SORTERS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why some 50 youths, who in February and October of last year passed for sorterships in the Chief Post Office, have not yet received appointments; when such appointments are likely to be made; and whether they will bear date from the time of the entries of the candidates into the service?
  MR. HANBURT: The 50 youths referred to have been employed temporarily since last autumn to meet the pressure of work in the General Post Office. Proposals will be submitted to the Treasury in a few days for making a permanent addition to the force employed in the General Post Office, and if those proposals are approved by the Treasury, the 50 persons referred to will, subject to the usual conditions, receive appointments dating from the time of their first employment on full duties.

  BARRACKS ACT, 1890.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much has been expended during the current financial year under the Barracks Act 1890, and what balance, if any, remains of the money authorised under that Act?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The approximate expenditure to date in the current year under the Barracks Act 1890, is £345,000, and the unexpended balance on the loan £798,000, but the whole of this balance has been allocated to definite services which have either been actually commenced or for which contracts have been authorised.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL RATES (PUBLIC COMPANIES).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Her Majesty's Government will bring in a Bill authorising the directors of public companies liable to be
  882
  assessed for rates in any parish or district to pay Voluntary School rates levied therein, if it shall appear that the levy of a compulsory rate will be obviated thereby?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend, upon the information at present at my disposal, I do not think there is any necessity to bring in a Bill. Unless an express prohibition is contained in the Act of Parliament or other document constituting the company, the question of contribution to a voluntary rate is purely a matter for the discretion of the directors acting in the interests of the company, and if, as stated in the Question, it appeared that the levying of a compulsory rate which might create a heavier burden would be avoided by contribution to a voluntary rate, I see no reason why the directors should not, in the bonâ fide exercise of their discretion, contribute to a voluntary rate.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, inasmuch as the copy of an amending Order making regulations under the Agricultural Rates Act 1896, which was laid upon the Table on the 5th instant, was not issued until the 18th instant, that is, three days after the time limited by section 6, sub-section 3, for objecting to the Order, there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute; and whether the Order is now binding in law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am of opinion that the statute has been complied with, and the Order referred to by the hon. and learned Member is now in force and binding. The condition of the statute is, that the Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. This was done on February 5th, and the Votes and proceedings of both Houses record the fact. If, as I gather from the Question, there was some delay in the printing and distribution to the Members of the House, this does not invalidate the Order.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid it appeared that, in the opinion of the learned Attorney General, there was no legal remedy. It was obvious, therefore, that it

  883
  was necessary—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. and learned Member rising to a point of Order?
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that, to secure the rights of Members of the House, he wished to know, when Papers were presented pursuant to statute and ordered to be printed, who was responsible for seeing that the Papers were printed and circulated without delay?
  *MR. SPEAKERreplied that the hon. and learned Member had the same means as himself of finding out what Department was responsible. It was a little difficult to say.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the Local Government Board had repudiated responsibility.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that as this had happened two years in succession would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board undertake that in future if the important Order referred to in the Question was interfered with by verbal or other amending Orders, he would call the attention of the House to the matter?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLreplied that he would consult the President of the Local Government Board on the point, but the Board had complied with the statute and were in no way responsible.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think everyone has suffered very much through the delay in printing Papers after they are laid on the Table of the House. Papers are laid on the Table and ordered to be printed, and then days, sometimes weeks, expire before they are in the hands of Members. May I ask whether in this House there is any authority to cause Papers which have been laid on the Table to be printed and circulated without delay?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly papers which have been laid on the Table and ordered to be printed ought to be printed and circulated at the earliest possible moment. I will inquire into the matter, and if I find I have any authority I shall be ready to exercise it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether there was not an Order of the House binding not only on the department concerned but on the officers of
  884
  the House, to insure the speedy delivery of Papers that had been printed among Members of the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If any such Order of the kind is brought to my notice, I will consider its application.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix the date for the Debate on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and, whether he can say how many days the Government are prepared to give for the Debate?
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix a date for the Debate on the Report of the Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, and also to the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have to say that, as the House is aware, the discussion on this important question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland was deferred in deference to the general wish of hon. Members from Ireland. We shall begin the discussion, in Committee, of the Education Bill on Thursday next. I think it would be inconvenient that the Committee stage of the Bill should be interrupted by other business. As soon, however, as that stage is concluded, I shall be prepared to find time for the discussion of the financial relations.
  MR. J. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to say anything more definite in regard to the first portion of the Question? I may point out in regard to the second portion of my Question that the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer at all.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As regards the first part of the Question, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible for me to forecast, I will not say with certainty, but with anything like confidence, the precise length of time which will be occupied in Committee on the Education Bill. I hope it

  885
  will not be long, but that does not depend on the Government or on the supporters of the Government. As to the second paragraph of the Question, there is no desire on the part of the Government to unduly stint the discussion on the financial relations. We are prepared to give ample time, and I hope that pledge will not he abused by those hon. Gentlemen who desire to take part in the Debate.
  MR. DILLONasked if the discussion would be taken the first week in March, when the Irish Land Bill would be introduced—the Wednesday to be free for the Irish Land Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will be taken the second week in March, and I hope the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be finished by then.
  MR. DILLONasked whether he correctly understood that, if the Committee stage of the Education Bill was not finished before March 10, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Wednesday for the Irish Land Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall have no choice in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the Government intended to proceed with the Committee Stage of the Education Hill de die in diem until it was finished?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir, with the exception of Friday.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would place on the Table as a Return the terms of the reference to the Commission on the financial relations? It would be convenient to have it before us in print.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know whether it is usual to lay on the Table as a Return the terms of the reference to a Royal Commission, but I will see what I can do to comply with the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. REDMONDasked whether, in view of the strong opinion entertained against the appointment of the Commission on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman would not suspend any step in the direction of its appointment until after the Debate?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I gave a pledge in that direction before, but if I am wrong I am quite willing to state again that the Commission will not be appointed until after the Debate on the financial relations.

  SUPPLY (SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES).
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be presented and issued to Members; whether they can be issued early in the week; and whether he will arrange to take them, as was done last year, before the Civil Service Estimates for the ensuing year 1897–8?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Estimates will be printed, or at all events all the Supplementary Estimates that will be taken next Friday will be printed on Wednesday. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it does not depend on me but upon the Department that prepares the Supplementary Estimates as to what date they are laid before the House, but I trust that will be convenient.
  MR. CHANNING: Which of the Supplementary Estimates will be taken on Friday? Will Class 4 be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe that the only Supplementary Estimate—so my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury informs me—in regard to which there is any doubt about its being printed is one which has come in very late from the Irish Land Committee.

  DISTRESS (BELMULLET UNION).
  Mr. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has, seen in the Irish daily papers of Friday last, the report of the meeting held in Belmullet on the previous day, under the Chairmanship of the Right Rev. Monsignor Hewson, V.F., P.P., when that right rev. gentleman speaking with the authority of his high position affirmed that distress bordering on famine existed in the Belmullet Union; if he had noted that amongst other assertions made on the occasion by Monsignor Hewson, the following are in record in the report of his speech: (1) That the distress now existing threatened to be the most serious

  887
  that the people had been in since 1860, and that it would probably not be exceeded by that of the winter of 1870, and the spring of 1880; (2) that the official sent down recently from the Local Government Board to inquire into the distress in the Belmullet Union never visited a single homestead or a single farm in the parish of Belmullet; (3) that from the end of November up to the present time the consumption of meal in the districts supplied by the traders of Belmullet had increased eighteen fold beyond the normal consumption in other years, proving as Monsignor Hewson held, that the potato crop had failed; (4) that the rates laben all round in the Belmullet Union amounted to nearly 10s. in the pound between poor rates and baroney cess; and whether in view of such assertions made by an ecclesiastic of Monsignor Hewson's position and authority, the Government will not now take immediate and exceptional measures to meet this distress in the Belmullet Union?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member who puts this Question was good enough to hand in at the Irish Office today a private notice of it; but time, of course, has not admitted of my obtaining a detailed report. I may, however, say that I have before me official reports made from sources other than the Local Government Board, which confirm the reports already made by that Board. From these reports it appears that there is no reason to anticipate general distress of a nature requiring the exceptional expedient of relief works, and it is expected that any cases of distress which may arise can be dealt with under the Poor Law system.

  CRETE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will propose a Commission to inquire into the massacres recently perpetrated in Crete, and especially as to the fate of the Mussulman inhabitants of the interior of the island?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government do not think that there would be any advantage in making such a proposal.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware
  888
  that Colonel Vassos, who is in command of the Greek troops in Crete, states among other things, in the course of his proclamation, that he has orders to keep the peace between Christian and Moslem inhabitants; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Powers are unable to keep up communication with or to keep order in the interior of the island, and that the Greek forces are in a position to do so, the Powers will consider the desirability of delegating to them that duty?
  MR. CURZON: The proclamation issued by Colonel Vassos promised among other things, peace to the inhabitants of Crete. So far, however, the presence of the Greek troops would seem to have had an opposite effect. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government consider it unlikely that the Powers would consider the desirability of delegating to the Greek forces any such duty as is spoken of in the Question.
  MR. STEVENSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the second part of the Question that the Powers are unable to keep up communication with or keep order in the interior of the island?
  MR. CURZON: I think I have answered that Question every day during the last week. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what branch of the British Service does Major Bor belong; by whom was he appointed to organise the gendarmerie at Canea; and under whoso directions does he act?
  MR. CURZON: Major Bor belongs to the Royal Marine Artillery. His appointment as Commander of the Cretan Gendarmerie was proposed with the approval of all parties in the Island, by the International Commissioners, but did not meet with the unanimous assent of the Powers. Pending the appointment of another officer, who should not be chosen from the subjects of any of the Great Powers, Major Bor was asked to undertake the duties of the post provisionally. He accepted and arrived on the 6th instant at Canea, where he acts under the direction of the Turkish authorities.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Power opposed Major Bor's appointment.
  MR. CURZON: I do not think there is any secret about it: in fact, I have

  889
  stated it to the House. Major Bor's appointment was opposed by Russia.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to confirm or deny the statement that several Christians were roasted alive in a baker's oven during the recent disturbances in Canea?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul reports, by telegraph, that on first hearing of the story that Christians had been roasted alive at Canea, he went with Mr. Alvarez, the British Delegate on the Judicial Commission, to the bakery where this outrage was alleged to have taken place. They carefully examined the ruins, but could find no trace of dead bodies inside or outside the oven. Four bakers' apprentices, who were said to have perished in another bakery, were subsequently found alive.
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I desire to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether there is any truth in the statements in to-day's papers that the Cretan forces have been fired upon by the united fleets of the Powers, and whether a Turkish transport carrying troops has been escorted by a British torpedo boat from one part of the island to another?
  MR. CURZON: Since I came into the House I have received private notice of quite a number of questions from hon. Members, nearly all of which relate to the same topic. Perhaps other hon. Members will allow me to reply to them at the same time. Our information is not to the effect that there has been any attack upon, or bombardment of, the Greek forces in Crete. The insurgents outside Canea, in spite of the injunctions of the Admirals who, under orders from their Governments, had made themselves responsible for the protection of Canea, renewed their attack upon the town from the south-east yesterday. Under these circumstances the international squadron had no choice but to prevent by force the advance from being continued—[Opposition cries of "Oh!" and Ministerial cheers]—which they accordingly did. [Opposition groans, several cries of " Shame," and renewed Ministerial cheers.] The firing lasted but a few minutes. As regards the Turkish transport, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked me, we have no information.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is an hon. Member waiting to take his seat.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry Currie Leigh-Bennett, Esquire, for the County of Surrey (North Western of Chertsey Division).
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Halifax, v. William Rawson Shaw, Esquire, Manor of North-stead.
CRETE (ACTION OF BRITISH SHIPS).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE,who was received with Opposition cheers, said: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the firing on Greek forces in Crete by Her Majesty's ships. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There has been no firing on Creek forces. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "On Cretan forces!"]
  MR. SPEAKERhaving read the Motion,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY said: On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether, as the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated there has been no firing on Greek forces—[Opposition cries of "Cretan forces!" and an HON. MEMBER: "The House will decide that!"]—this Motion is in Order?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On a point of Order also, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the forces on whom the international ships fired were Greek forces. [Cheers.] The Cretans are Greeks, from my point of view; but I will change the word if you like.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Motion can be changed, no doubt, by using the words, "Cretan insurgents," or whatever the fact is—I do not know myself—but I do not

  891
  think it is necessary to make the change as Cretans are, in one sense, Greek. [Cheers.] Is the hon. Gentleman supported by 40 Members?
  The whole of the Members on the Opposition side of the House, including the occupants of the Front Bench, having risen in their places amid loud cheers,
  MR. LABOUCHERE,who was again greeted with cheers, moved "That this House do now adjourn." The hon. Member said that a few days ago the adjournment of the House was moved in order to call attention to what was going on in Crete, in regard to which many of them entertained the most profound distrust. [Cheers.] On that occasion they were told that no reply would be given to them. The Leader of the House told them that they must take very great care even when they merely asked for information from the Government, as the slightest mistake might lead to a great war in Europe. [Ministerial cheers.] He did not believe in this bugbear of a great European war. [Cheers.] They had information in the public newspapers that morning, which had been confirmed by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the international fleet, with British ships in the front—[cheers]—had fired upon Greek forces—as he contended they were—but in any case they were Cretans fighting for their independence. [Cheers.] What was the explanation given to the House? Her Majesty's Government declared that the international forces had taken possession of three towns in Crete, and they protested that they only fired when they found that the Cretans would not recognise this occupation and tried to take those towns. But he would point out that the whole of Crete, with the exception of those three towns, was in the hands of the Cretans. [Cheers.] In those towns there were Turkish garrisons, and those garrisons, according to the newspapers, had frequently issued from the towns, waged war upon the insurgents, and had then fallen back on the towns. Was it surprising that the Cretans should wish to put an end to all this? [Cheers.] Upon what possible ground had the Government interfered by landing soldiers and marines to hold those towns, except for the benefit of Turkey? [Cheers.] Those towns would have been taken by the insurgents had not the Great Powers interfered, and
  892
  now, not content with holding those towns, the English fleet had, to the horror of the English people, fired upon the insurgents and driven them back. It was time for the Liberal Party to speak out on this matter. [Loud cheers.] They were told that they were not to make this question of foreign affairs a Party question. [Ministerial cheers.] They made it a national question. [Cheers.] They believed that the people of England were determined that we ought not to interfere in any sort of way diplomatically, and still less by force of arms, in favour of the Turks in any part of the Turkish Empire, and yet that was what we were doing at the present moment. [Cheers.] He moved the adjournment of the House in order to give the Government the opportunity of explaining what was going on in Crete. But, so far as he was concerned, it was enough for him that the atrocious wickedness had been committed; and he would carry his Motion to a Division in order that, although they might be in a minority in the House, the country should clearly understand they should do their utmost to prevent any further action being taken on behalf of that miserable creature, that foul blot upon civilisation, the Sultan of Turkey. [Loud cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking of a friendly Sovereign; and it is one of the rules of the House to speak of a friendly Sovereign with the same decency of language as would be employed in speaking of a Member of this House or of the other House. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of that rule, but I was carried away by the thought of the statements which have been made by Mr. Gladstone and other eminent Liberals in regard to the Sultan. [Laughter and cheers, and Ministerial cries of"Oh!"] I beg to move my Motion.
  MR. JOHN DILLON,in seconding the Motion, said that when the question of Crete was raised a few days ago, on a Motion for the Adjournment of of the House, appeals were made by the Government to the House not to disturb the Concert of Europe, and to observe that reticence which foreign affairs deserved. In his humble judgment the

  893
  House had been too silent on this question—[cheers]—and as a consequence they had this outrage—for it was regarded as an outrage by the great majority of the people of the kingdom—of the guns of her Majesty's fleet having been turned on men who, after centuries of oppression, were risking their lives in defence of everything a civilised people held dear, and were gallantly driving their oppressors, the Turks, before them. [Cheers.] For months they had been gulled by declarations as to the necessity of maintaining the Concert of Europe. But what had the Concert of Europe done—what had the mighty engines of the Great Powers which lay around the coast of Crete done to protect one man, woman, or child in Crete until their hands had been forced by the gallant Creek nation? [Cheers.] And were it not for the action of the Creeks, the fleets of the European Powers might still be hanging round the coast of Crete consulting and negotiating until the whole population of the island was murdered. [Cheers.] What was the situation in Crete? The House was told that the Powers of Europe had undertaken at the eleventh hour to maintain peace and order, and to protect the inhabitants of Crete; and in the same breath they were told that it was impossible for the Powers to communicate with the interior of the island. The fact was that the Powers of Europe would not solve this question or allow the Greeks to solve it. [Cheers.] He charged against the Government—no matter what evasive answers might be given in the House—that at the present moment the forces of England were ranged on the side of the Turks. [Cheers.] He was not surprised that the Speaker had intervened to protect the Sultan as a friendly Sovereign. Until to-day, when they read the disgraceful news in the papers, the people and the House of Commons were under the impression that the Government did not desire the Sultan to be considered as a friend of this country. [Cheers.] He was not only a friend, he was an ally. [Cheers.] The House was told that Turkish authority prevailed in Canea under the protection of the marines of the six Powers. Therefore at present the British forces were the allies of the Turks and the enemies of Greece and the Cretan people. The answer of the
  894
  Under Secretary had been carefully worded to minimise the details of this bombardment; but would the Government contradict the details given by the Daily News correspondent at Canea?—
  "At 4.30 this afternoon signals were made to the Dryad, Harrier, and Revenge, and also to one Italian, one German, and one Russian ship to open fire on the Cretan position."
  Who was the dictator or commander-in-chief to set Her Majesty's ships in motion in this way? [Cheers.]
  "This was done. The British ships fired some 40 shells, making with the others about 70 in all, at the village and round house which were held by the Cretans. The flag was soon hauled down. Cease fire was sounded after ten. minutes. Thereupon the flag was again hoisted. The rocks round the position were crowded with Cretans. The Turks, encouraged by the fleet, now opened a lively fusilade, while the Cretans were carrying off their wounded."
  The British would fire on the Cretan insurgents, but they would not silence the Turkish batteries. [Cheers.] This account ought to be contradicted by some member of the Government, or an apology ought to be made to the House. The Government had made a mockery of the House by the replies which had been given to questions. [Cheers.] It had long been asserted that everything was being done for peace and order in Crete, and the other day the Under Secretary stated that the late Vali had been appointed in accordance with the arrangement with the Powers, that no attempt had been made to interfere with his authority, and that Turkey had loyally carried out the agreement with the Powers. Now the Vali himself stated that from the moment he landed in Crete he never had any authority, and that messengers were sent from Constantinople warning the Turkish troops to take no orders from him and give him no support. It was an uncontested fact that the whole arrangement was a fraud and an imposture from the beginning. [Cheers.] The reply given to him to-day was most unsatisfactory. He asked whether it was true that during the burning of Canea some three weeks ago five Christians had been put into an oven and baked alive?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that last week there was a discussion on the general policy of the Government in the matter of Crete, and

  895
  it is a rule of the House that the same question cannot be twice debated in the same Session on a Motion for adjournment. The present Motion refers to the firing on Greek forces by British war vessels at Canea, and to that point the hon. Member must confine himself.
  MR. DILLONsaid his argument was that the Powers had shown themselves ineffective in protecting the life and property in Crete, that the Greeks were the right people to undertake the task, and that the Powers had no right to prevent the Greeks from restoring order. He should like to know whether that would be in order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I cannot give a general direction to the hon. Member beforehand; but the question whether five people were baked in an oven is not relevant to the matter before the House. I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the words of the Motion, which relate to the firing on the Greek forces by Her Majesty's ships, and I trust he will confine himself to what bears upon that question.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he had received information which made him gravely doubt the answer given by the Under Secretary, and he hoped further inquiries would be made. He wished to know what was the international position as between the British forces and the Greek forces in Crete? Was England at war with Greece? [Cheers.] If not, what right had England to turn her ships' guns on the Greek forces? [Cheers.] Either England was at war with Greece or was acting as the policeman of the Sultan. Was she lending her forces to do the dirty—the infernal—work of the Sultan? [Cheers.] High and mighty politicians had delivered lectures on international obligations; and Greece had been taken to task by The Times and other authorities for breaches of those obligations. What, then, was the international position of England? [Cheers.] There were times and occasions where the motive and the cause justified breaches of the law, whether national or international. If Greece had acted wrongly, from the narrow standpoint of international law, she had done it under great provocation and in a good cause. [Cheers.] He had lately seen a letter from a lady in Athens wondering at the action of the British
  896
  Government, and saying that if we had seen in the streets of our towns women and children refugees with noses and ears cut off, our blood would boil. [Cheers.] Greece had violated international law, if at all, in the cause of human freedom, and the generous sentiment of all mankind approved her. [Cheers]. England had equally violated international law; but it was done to maintain tyranny and to outrage the sentiment of the whole civilised world. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The House will learn without surprise that I do not mean to imitate the violence of language—[cheers, cries of "Oh!" and "What about the guns?"]—which has characterised the Mover and Seconder of the Motion we are now discussing. I speak with too great a sense of the responsibility which devolves upon the Government and of the difficulties and dangers impending over Europe as a whole to allow, as far as I am concerned and as far as I can help it, this Debate to degenerate into a controversy between the two sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who opened the Debate, followed in this as in other matters by the Seconder, poured great contempt upon the very suggestion that the present condition of Europe was one which might well involve anxious considerations for all who care for the cause of peace—that if, either through error or misfortune, a spark really falls into the combustible material too widely spread, we may be on the verge of some great European catastrophe. [Cheers.] Those who deride such fears as illusory are surely blind themselves to facts of contemporaneous history. There have been in the history of Europe many periods when Europe was anxiously watching the ambitions of one great Power or another, not knowing whether such Power was not going for its own selfish purposes to precipitate warlike operations. Sir, there is absolute unanimity, there is an absolutely unanimous desire among every one of the Great Powers to avoid anything in the nature of war. [Cheers.] No ambition, no personal ambition, interferes or is likely to interfere with that desire. And yet when we find that the masters of these colossal armies are themselves moved with the deepest anxiety lest war should be declared, lest those embattled hosts

  897
  should really be thrust one upon the other with results which nobody can contemplate without horror, surely it is not even for great international authorities like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—[Cheers and laughter, and, counter cheers and cries of "No!"]
  MR. DILLON: I did not pose as such. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Or the hon. Member for Northampton, who preceded him, to say that such fears are illusory, the creations of a disturbed brain. [Cheers.]
  MR. DILLON: I said nothing about international authorities. I said what ninetenths of the people of this country feel. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does me the honour to interrupt me again his interruption will be more relevant. I say that these fears to which I have given expression in this House, and which are entertained by every responsible Statesman in the North, in the South, in the East, in the West of Europe, are surely not to be brushed aside because the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Mayo tell us they are illusory. [Cheers.] We are not concerned merely with the peace of Europe, although that is a consideration the gravity of which I should have thought could not have been exaggerated; we are also concerned, and I for one admit it, with the peace of Crete and with the future government of that island. The hon. Gentleman appears to hold the view that the action of the Greeks has been entirely in the direction—I am speaking now of the present condition of the island—of saving life and property, and that the action of the Powers has been wholly impotent to secure either of those great ends. Sir, there has been a sacrifice, a deplorable sacrifice, both of life and property in Crete, and I think if the hon. Gentleman will carefully and impartially consider I who is most responsible for that loss and who has done most to obviate it, he will certainly not say that the international forces have been idle or ineffective, or that the actions of the Greek forces have been marked by success in these directions. [Cheers.] Let us always remember in dealing with this question of Crete that the population of Crete, although it may be a homogeneous population in point of
  898
  race—I think it is so in race—is not homogeneous in point of religion, and that we have not merely to deal with a large number of those who are Christian by religion, but we have also to deal with a large minority who are Mahomedan by religion. Those who desire good government and security for life and property are bound to regard not less the security of Mahomedan life and property than that of Christian life and policy. Both are and both ought to be sacred to this House, and we ought to do all that we can, not only for one party alone, but for both. [Cheers.] Let me ask in the second place whether we are seriously to understand that this House is of opinion that when a town has been occupied by forces representative of the Great Powers, when the Great Powers have made themselves responsible for the peace and good order of such town, and when the town and the people are menaced by the operations of insurgents outside the. walls, the Great Powers are to fold their arms and withdraw their ships. [Cheers.] Is that a policy which is seriously pressed upon the Government from any quarter of the House? Whatever our view may be of the proper future for Crete and of the action of the Greek Government, at all events these elementary propositions will be agreed to by both sides of the House—namely, that when the Great Powers have occupied and made themselves responsible for peace and security they ought not to tolerate from any outside force interference with the prerogative which they have taken on themselves. [Cheers.] I may say, in passing, that we have no information in any sense confirming the narrative the hon. Gentleman has given us of those transactions. I know nothing of the source from whence he derives his information.
  MR. DILLON: From the Special Correspondent of the Daily News. [Cheers, and ironical cheers and laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have nothing to say against that gentleman, whose name I know nothing about. But I may say to the House that there is no information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, there can be no information given to the House, which in any sense confirms what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government

  899
  have received any information on the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, we have no details. Having now briefly dealt with these two points of the European, situation in the first place, imperilled, as we think, by these transactions, and of the condition of Crete and the action of the Great Powers resisting aggression upon towns under their immediate protection, I come now to what is, I believe, after all, at the bottom of the strong sentiments which I doubt not most genuinely animate hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, the future condition of the island. Upon this subject the House will not think that I desire to keep anything from them when I say that we feel ourselves absolutely bound by the present conditions of international communications to speak with the utmost reserve upon this point. As I understand the matter, hon. Members opposite argue in this way. They say:—
  "Here are the Great Powers engaged in exacting from Turkey and trying to introduce into the island reforms which may look very well upon paper, but which, after all, are not so very much better than other reforms which have been extorted by the same influence from the same Power, and which may suffer the same fate as those previous reforms have done."
  I think hon. Members opposite will admit that I have put their argument which is at the bottom of their feeling on this question fairly and in a manner which they will not desire to alter or, I hope, to add to. I can only say upon this point that Her Majesty's Government entirely feel the force of that argument. They recognise perfectly well—perfectly clearly, as clearly as any hon. Gentleman opposite can do—that to leave Crete in a condition, bless it with what paper reforms you like, in which it would rest with the Turkish Government to upset by its own will the good work which Europe has endeavoured to accomplish—to do that would fall far short of the international duties we have taken upon ourselves. [Cheers.] I do not think that I ought to say more upon the subject. The House will, I hope, appreciate the difficulties under which I speak. [Cheers.] And I hope that, although I am necessarily most reticent in the observations I have to make in regard to the future, the House will allow that the frank and clear statement of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen opposite see in the
  900
  future, and which we recognise as clearly as they do, may satisfy them that everything will be done which we can do to obviate dangers of which we ourselves are fully conscious. [Cheers.] With that declaration, which I trust may not be unsatisfactory, I hope that the House may consent to bring to an end as soon as may be a Debate which I can most conscientiously say will, in my judgment, serve neither the interests of Europe, nor the interests of Crete, nor—perhaps of no less importance—the interests of this country. [Cheers.] The task in which we are engaged is an anxious and difficult one. I hope the House will not make it more difficult by Debates animated, I believe, by honest, fervid feeling, by the expression of sentiments which I fully recognise not only exist strongly in this House, but are largely felt by gentleman of all opinions and all classes out of doors. [Cheers.] I believe that if they do not wholly trust our capacity they will at all events give us credit for good intentions—[cheers and cries of "No!"]—and for an earnest desire to do the best we can for the population of the island with a full consciousness of all the difficulties that have prevented reforms in the past, and an earnest desire to see that those difficulties shall not interfere with reforms in the future. [Cheers.]
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,who rose amid cheers, said: I am quite sure that no man in this House will speak on this subject without a sense of responsibility; but this I do feel, that the time has come when the voice of England ought to be heard upon this question. [Cheers.] Upon a question involving the liberties of the Greek people the voice of England has always been the first and the leading voice. I think that it is just 70 years since the death of Canning. In those days the voice of England was heard in Europe, and with great effect, in the cause of Greece. The right hon. Gentleman has invited our silence and he has spoken of the combustible condition of things in the Greek waters. Yes, Sir, but it is because of the combustible condition of things there that we protest to-day against shells from English men-of-war—[cheers]—being exploded in the midst of that combustible material. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken sarcastically of the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for

  901
  Mayo to the principles of international law. I am afraid I must also submit myself to his lash; I must ask, What is the international position which England claims to occupy to-day in Crete? ["Hear, hear!"] What is the position of things in Crete? Crete is a country nominally subject to Turkey. It is a part of the Turkish dominions. An insurrection has arisen in Turkish dominions. Why are you there? [Cheers.] What are you doing there? What is your object? Why, Sir, apparently your object is to assert and to maintain the dominion of Turkey against the insurgents. [Cheers.] What were those bombs fired from the British Fleet for? I suppose to put down the insurrection in Crete as against the Turks. The right hon. Gentleman has said that you have occupied these towns. Yes, but what have you occupied them for? [Cheers.] Why are you in those towns at all? For what purpose did you go to them? Well, the Greek forces have joined the insurrectionary forces in Crete. That, of course, is on their own responsibility. One country may join one side in an insurrection. The Creeks have joined the insurrectionary Cretans, and you have joined the Turks. [Loud cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is not correct. [Cheers.]
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: But what is correct? [Cheers.] We know whom the Greeks have joined. Whom have you joined? [Cheers, and an HON. MEMBER: "Neither."] I want to get to the bottom of the situation internationally. What are you doing here, and what is the object at which you are aiming? [Cheers.] Now, there is another statement to which no answer has been made. A question has not been put, but I find this stated in the correspondence to-day, and I should like to know if it is true:—
  "The foreign admirals went to-day to Agioi Theodoroi, where Colonel Vassos' camp is situated. On their return they invited the commander of the Greek warship Nauarchos Miaulis to call upon them, and informed him of their decision to attack the Greek troops with the four men-of-war anchored off Agioi Theodoroi if Colonel Vassos should advance into the interior."
  This is in The Times correspondence of to-day, and we ought to have a statement as to whether or not it is true. It proceeds:—
  "The commander of the Nauarchos Miaulis and the British Admiral then proceeded to the
  902
  Greek headquarters and acquainted Colonel Vassos with the decision of the foreign commanders."
  Is that true? Did the British Admiral make that communication to Colonel Vassos? And then, I ask, if that is so, What is your international situation? By what right and on what title and from what point of view are you taking sides in this insurrection? [Cheers.] That is an international question on which I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman would condemn me if I offered an opinion. But what we have a right to do is to ask Her Majesty's Government their opinion on this subject. [Cheers.] We are told that the Great Powers have taken this matter up. Well, Sir, but the Great Powers have been taking these matters up for a long time. [Cheers.] We have had the Concert of Europe in Armenia. What was told us with reference to the Concert of Europe in Armenia? That nothing could be done, and now we are waiting upon the Concert of Europe to determine upon the future of Crete, and meanwhile we are bombarding the insurgents. [Cheers and laughter.] That is not a condition of things which, in my opinion, ought to be allowed to continue. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Concert of Europe cannot come to a conclusion on the subject of the treatment of Crete, we ought not to take the part which unfortunately we seem to have been taking in these affairs for the last two days. ["Hear, hear!"] We have received a statement, and I am satisfied with that statement—it is understood that Lord Salisbury has sent a circular to the Powers to say that they should not interfere with Greece—and I should have thought interfered with Crete at all—until the Powers had come to a conclusion as to what was to be done in the future with Crete. If that is so, why are you bombarding in the meantime? [Cheers.] Why do the Powers not come to a conclusion in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like to know whether the Government adhere to that position—the sound position which is stated to have been taken up by Lord Salisbury in this matter. Why not adhere to that position—that they will take no part with reference to Greece, and that they will take no part in the Cretan insurrection, until a conclusion has been arrived

  903
  at by the Powers as to the future treatment of Crete? ["Hear, hear!"] We are told that if we meddle in these matters there will be universal war. That argument has been used—I was going to say it has been abused—[cheers]—for some time. Whenever anything occurs, whether in Armenia, in Crete, or anywhere else, you say at once, "Do not say a word, or there will be universal war." But we are not going to make war. We want nothing. Why should war take place? ["Hear, hear!"] I do not understand what this universal war is to be. We are not going to fight anybody. Who is going to fight, and against whom? We ought to have some explanation of that. [Cheers.] Why, then, are we to be told, with reference to this Concert of Europe, which does nothing, that we are to hold our peace, and take part in nothing, because universal war will occur, and no explanation is given why a war should occur, or of what nature it will be? We ought to understand whether we are acting in this matter according to the old formula of that superannuated diplomacy which goes by the name of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire? [Cheers.] Then we shall understand our position. It is one against which I shall protest. I rather gather from the right hon. Gentleman the hope that what the Government are proceeding to do is to detach Crete from Turkish rule. That is the only policy which, in my opinion, is worthy of an English Government—[cheers]—and I hope that the Government are pursuing that policy. If, as I had believed from the account given of the circular of Lord Salisbury, it were the fact that he was pressing that policy, that he was demanding and pressing upon the Powers to come to an understanding upon that subject, I can assure the Government that, as far as I am concerned, I should have given them my cordial support. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] I hope that is still their policy. I think the principle laid down by Lord Salisbury is a perfectly sound one, and I hope he will adhere to it, whatever else may be done by any other Power. [Cheers.] What is wanted is, that the Powers should come to a determination without delay on the question of emancipating Crete from Turkish rule. That is the
  904
  point to which I think we ought to direct all our thoughts and energies—["hear, hear!"]—but in the meanwhile, until such a decision has been arrived at, and in order to precipitate such a decision, let us, for Heaven's sake, abstain from being the leading actor in putting down this insurrection—[cheers]—because we are presented to Europe and to Greece as the bombarding Power in this affair. Why is England, who is, I believe, the most desirous to bring this matter to a speedy and safe conclusion—why should we be put forward as the loading actors in this transaction? [Cheers.] I regret that very much, as on the policy of the Government generally in endeavouring to come to a settlement I am not disposed to oppose them, but rather to support them in what I understand to be their policy in demanding a settlement on the Cretan question before they interfere in any way with Greece. If that is their policy I am sure they will be supported. ["Hear, hear!"] But what shocks this House and gives great uneasiness and causes great condemnation outside this House is that, in the meanwhile, we should appear as the active opponents of the Greek cause by what we are doing, that we should be occupying these towns in Crete—for whom? Obviously for the Turk, who is nominally master of Crete. I confess I think this bombardment a most unfortunate event—an event which places England in a false position in the eyes of all the world. [Cheers.] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has made this Motion, as I understand it, as a protest against that transaction, and in order that, in the House of Commons, where we have an opportunity of expressing the voice of the people we represent, we may protest, until the emancipation of Crete is accomplished, against our being the foremost to take up arms, as it were, against a people who are fighting, and rightly fighting, for their own freedom. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had made a most serious and dangerous proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was an invitation—nay, a challenge—to the Government to break up the Concert of Europe. The conflict in Crete was a conflict between the Greeks on the one hand, and united Europe on the other.

  905
  [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] Hon. Members had apparently forgotten that not six months ago the Powers of Europe, acting together, framed a new-constitution for Crete. It was true that they did not know exactly what it was—[Opposition cheers]—but that constitution did exist, and the Powers had appointed their own Governor in the island, where he was ruler until be absconded the other day. It was contrary to fact to say that England was fighting with Greece. What had really occurred was that Greece had undertaken a piratical expedition. [Loud Opposition, cries of " Oh!" and cheers.] Yes; for no allegation had been made against Turkey, and no demand had been made for reparation of an injury. It was, therefore, a piratical expedition. [Renewed cries of "Oh!"] But he did not understand the proceedings of the Powers. He could not comprehend why one day they should prohibit Greece from landing troops and munitions of war and permit her to do so on the next. [Opposition cheers.] It was not, however, correct to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that England was fighting either against Christians or Greece. What England was doing was this—she was acting with the European Powers against a piratical expedition. Shots, however, had been fired, and practically England was at war at this moment. [Opposition cheers, and Mr. DILLON: "With whom?"] He did not quite know. [Laughter.] That was one of the things he wanted to know; but undoubtedly acts of war had been committed, and that was a matter upon which that House had a right to have all the information which the Government could give. He did not say that they had a right to information as to the negotiations of the Powers with respect to the future, but they ought to know the actual course of events of which the firing formed part. Crete was a region of mountains, with ravines running down to the seashore. Did the Government intend to occupy the seaport towns and to leave the Greek troops in occupation of the interior? Did they intend to allow the Greeks to continue to land troops, stores, and munitions of war in Crete, and did they intend to prevent the Turks from doing likewise? Although the constitution invented for Crete and surrounded with guarantees
  906
  by the Powers had tumbled to pieces, the Government said that they would not do anything until they know what the future was to be. He had no sympathy with this Motion for Adjournment, and he quite recognised the extreme gravity of the situation. At the same time, he could not forget that acts of war were being committed by British ships, and, in the circumstances, he held that they were entitled to have a plain statement from the Government of the plan by which they proposed to pacify the Island of Crete. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR ROBERT REIDwas glad that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had asked the Government for information. The position that they had been in during the whole of this Eastern crisis—for the last 18 months—had been most deplorable. The Government could not say that during that time any unpatriotic action had been taken by bon. Members on his side of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] But at that moment they did not know what the policy of the Government was either in regard to Armenia or in regard to Crete. ["Hear, hear!"] In the last 12 months they had heard the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs say at least 40 times that these questions were being carefully considered by the Powers. Nothing had come of the negotiations of the Powers; they had not availed to prevent the shedding of Christian blood; all that they had done was to bring into odium and public contempt the Concert of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that there had been a piratical expedition on the part of Greece. Did not the hon. Member know that the essence of a piratical expedition was that it must be an expedition for which no Government made itself: responsible? In the present instance the Hellenic Government had made itself responsible in circumstances reflecting the greatest honour upon it. [Cheers.] Let them consider for a moment what was the position of the Greeks. Their kinsmen, men of their own blood, were in an island some 60 miles from their own coast. These kinsmen of theirs had for the last 70 years been striving for freedom in various ways. They had fought for it repeatedly, and took part in the Greek war of independence, but were not allowed to share the fruits of victory.

  907
  They had been treated in a manner which could hardly bear recital, and what had they now at last risen for? It was to defend their wives and daughters against nameless outrages, to prevent their homes from being desolated and themselves from being slaughtered without pity by the same race that had perpetrated the atrocities in Armenia. Those were the reasons of the action of these men upon whom the guns of Her Majesty's ships had been firing. [Cheers.] The six Powers, afraid of one another, who had done nothing in Armenia, were content for some time to do nothing in connection with Crete. It was true that the six Powers did in August last succeed in getting a paper Constitution for Crete from the Turks, but that Constitution was only worth the paper it was written on—nothing more. These brave Powers never sent troops to Canea and the other towns of Crete when massacres were going on, but they interfered as soon as the Greeks landed. He should think that the Greeks had come to the conclusion that the Concert of Europe was contemptible; at any rate they were not afraid to risk shedding their blood in support of men of their own race, men belonging to the most famous race in Europe, who saved civilisation against Oriental attack 2,300 years ago. [Cheers.] Every gallant man must desire that the legitimate aspiration for amalgamation on the part of Greece and Crete should be fulfilled, whenever its fulfilment should be possible consistently with European peace and order. [" Hear, hear!"] The Opposition had not been unreasonable in their conduct. Last autumn it was pointed out with much force by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech which had a great effect upon the agitation then begun, that we could not operate effectually in a military or naval sense to assist the Armenians, and immediately it was seen that further agitation would draw the country into danger without doing real good to the wretched Armenians the Opposition suppressed—perhaps too much—["hear, hear!"]—the feelings with which they were inspired. But then we did not take the part of the Turks. What was being done now was something quite different, and the participation of our ships in the matter was an indelible disgrace to the British Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  908
  Their ships had fired upon poor, wretched people who had risen for no other purpose than to defend their homes, their wives, and children. [Cheers] Those were the people upon whom the Government had fired, and it was an unworthy act and an unmanly duty to impose on British seamen. [Cheers.] He deeply regretted it, and he feared that it would result in the degradation of the great name and fame of this country in the eyes of Europe and of the people of the East. The First Lord of the Treasury had suggested,—
  "Here are we entering upon three towns; is it to be tolerated that the insurgents shall come in and tire on towns where our flag is flying?"
  But was it the case that the Government were allowing the Turks to fire from within those ramparts on the insurgents? [Cheers.] It could not be denied that the Turks were doing this. What was the position? It was that we, the British Power, by means of our Navy and Marines, were holding these three towns and allowing the Turks to sally out and fire on the insurgents when the latter approached to return the fire—which, he hoped they would always continue to do. [Cheers.] No one would satisfy the average Englishman, Scotchman, or Irishman that this was a worthy or a respectable thing for a great Power like this to do. The Leader of the Opposition had spoken in a manner which must have attracted the attention and the respect of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was our duty to have remained neutral, at all events until after the future of Crete had been settled, and not to take any aggressive action against Greece until that time had arrived. He understood that his right hon. Friend was limiting his observations to the point which was necessary to raise for the moment. For his own part, however, he declared that, whether arrangements were made or not, if at any time in respect of this matter the British Government was found attacking Greece, whether before or after any such arrangement, he for one—and he believed there were a great many other hon. Members—would object in the strongest possible way. [Cheers.] If we could not be saviours, let us not be executioners. [Cheers.] What the terror might be that seemed to haunt the right hon. Gentleman and the Govern-

  909
  ment he could not say, nor did he deny the great responsibility of his position or seek to ignore the difficulties of the position; yet, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that all the Powers were most anxious to avoid war, somehow we might find ourselves embarked in a war. He accepted the statement of fact, and did not seek to question it; but it was a very curious situation. At all events, this was clear—that the peace of Europe would not be improved by taking up the position of firing on the insurgents in Crete; that could do nothing to improve the prospects of peace. [Cheers.] It seemed to be a most strange thing that there were no materials, no details, in the hands of the Government, although the incidents took place on Saturday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): They took place yesterday.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid if this was the case they must put up with the want of information.
  MR. DILLON: How did the Daily News know about it?
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid at any rate this fact was true, that under some orders—they did not know what—British ships had fired on these unhappy insurgents, whose cause was as sacred, as honourable, as that which any men had ever risen to defend by arms. [Cheers.] He expressed his deep regret that not a word had been said to show regret for this action, which he thought would have far-reaching consequences, not only in respect of the Government themselves, but because it would leave a lasting stain on the reputation of this country. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I do not suppose that it is the intention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite first to misrepresent what has taken place and then to express their indignation about it. We have a few particulars, and I can place before the House real facts as to what took place. The incident is, of course, to be regretted—[ironical laughter]—everyone must regret that an incident of this kind should have been necessary. But the fact was that time after time the insurgents had been warned that they were not to advance to such a point where their guns would command the town. In that town
  910
  there would be various detachments of the allied Powers, and if the insurgents placed their guns where they intended to place them they would have been in command of the spots where the allied forces had been placed. In these circumstances, day after clay a council of Admirals urged the insurgents and Colonel Vassos not to advance beyond certain points. They showed as much patience and forbearance as it was their duty to show in such circumstances, because it was admitted that the great object should be to prevent a shot from being tired. Notwithstanding all the remonstrances, or possibly in order to force the situation, the insurgents disregarded what had been done by the allied commanders and took up those positions which would have commanded the town. The right hon. Gentleman says that we attempted to put down the insurrection. I say it is a ridiculous exaggeration. [Cheers.] It is not a misrepresentation, and there was no object—
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question upon this dispatch, wherein it is stated that the incident took place, not yesterday, but on Saturday? [The right hon. Gentleman again read the telegram in The Times, dated Canea, Feb. 20, as already given.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am perfectly prepared to say that the word "interior" must be an entire mistake. There is not an indication in a telegram received from Canea that that was the policy or the act of any single Admiral. I see now what the right hon. Gentleman feared was that Colonel Vassos was attacked in order that he might not take some steps into the interior. That is an entire mistake. The Admirals represented that the situation in the town of Canea was getting more dangerous day after day; and it was in consequence of the advance of the insurgents on Canea, and on account of that alone, that they were obliged to take this action, which all regret, though deemed to be necessary not only for the defence of Canea but for the defence of the detachments in that place. That is the explanation of the incident so far as we have information on the subject. In reply to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that we have not attempted to save a drop of Christian blood—["hear, hear!"]—I

  911
  have to say that he has not read the dispatches, and he has not read the newspapers. [Cheers.]
  SIR ROBERT REID: What I said was that they had not succeeded in saving it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Then you have not read the dispatches. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they? "] I will tell you. Hon. Members have said that there is no Party purpose in all this. [Ministerial laughter and cheers.] Why, then, these exaggerations; why are you telling the public outside who have not access to the documents and to the same information—
  SIR ROBERT REID: I say it is true. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I say not only that it is false—[cheers]—but that not even the enthusiasm of the hon. Member justifies the gross carelessness that can alone—["Oh, oh!" cries of "Withdraw," and cheers.]
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of dispatches; where are the dispatches? [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The right hon. Gentleman, with all his Parliamentary resource, is not going to save the hon. Member. [Opposition cries of "Where are the dispatches?" and uproar.] The right hon. Gentleman quoted a dispatch which he had seen in a newspaper this morning. [Opposition cries of " No, no," and "Yes, he did" from the Ministerial Benches.] I will state the whole information and what is known by everyone who has studied this question. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not anxious merely to defend the Government, but I am anxious that false statements which might reflect on the general policy of this country should not be allowed to circulate. I say that we have assisted the Christians in many parts of Crete, that many a Christian woman and child is saved now that would not have been saved. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] Hon. Members may accept it from me that this is so. We have conveyed, we have watched the embarkation of Christians from various Mussulman towns, we have assisted to get them off, we have assisted to feed them, and we have done ail we could in order to protect Christian life. [Cheers.] When the Consuls have telegraphed that Christians were in danger in any one of these towns we have immediately sent a ship there in order to
  912
  overawe the Mussulmans and to protect life. Why are we there? We are at those places where the Mussulmans are in the majority, and where the Christians are in the minority, and our presence gave security to both. We have been absolutely neutral as between Christian and Mussulman; we have been anxious to save the lives of each equally. I have shown what the truth is in regard to the firing on the insurgents. I have shown that it is not true, that it is absolutely false, that it was for the protection of the Mussulmans or Mahomedans that we have been acting. We have sent ship after ship, we have increased our forces there, not to put down the insurgents, but in order to have ships at those points where disorders were likely to take place, and in order to assist in keeping order. And let me further remind the House with regard to the charge brought against us that we have been favourable to Turkey in this matter. The fact is that pressure was put on the Turkish Government not to send troops to Crete. We made them diminish their garrisons there, we did all we could to prevent this lamentable outbreak between the Mahomedans and the Christians, who, after all, are both Cretans. It is not only the Christians who are Cretans, but the Mussulman and Mahomedan population of the island also. We have done our best to keep an even scale between the two sections, and we shall continue to do our best to see whether after all, notwithstanding all these deplorable incidents, we shall not be able to say that the intervention of the Concert of Europe has been to the advantage of Crete and to the inhabitants thereof, whether Mussulman or Christian.
  SIR ROBERT REID: May I say one word of personal explanation? I deeply regret that I should have been the subject or the occasion of any heat on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I think those who heard what I said, and what I think I said, will never suppose I intended to impute to the Government that they did not attempt or desire to rescue Christians. Of course they attempted and desired to rescue Christians. All I meant to say, and all I think I said, was that they had not succeeded, and in my humble opinion, in regard to Armenia, which is I think what I was speaking about, that statement is absolutely true. I have always refrained from making personal

  913
  attacks, and I regret that, for some reason best known to himself—["Oh!" from the Ministerialists]—the hon. Gentleman should have attacked me.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid that, according to the published reports for three or four days past, under the shelter of the ships of the Powers and the protection of British bluejackets and marines, the Turks had been making sorties and attacking the Cretans in the villages. If our troops were doing police duty in Crete why did not they do police duty upon every disturber of the peace, whether he were Mohammedan or Christian? The First Lord of the Admiralty had said, warnings had been given to the Greeks and to the Cretans that they were not to advance nearer to Canea, but all the time the Turkish troops were allowed to issue forth from under the ramparts of Canea, and attack the Cretans. Was it not human nature in these instances that the Cretans should attempt to stop these sorties? A telegram had just arrived in the House stating that neither the French nor the Italian vessels fired a single shot last Sunday afternoon. [Cheers.] Was that true or not? ["Heal, hear!"] Was it a fact that the whole shame, the whole disgrace of that Christian Sunday afternoon's work—["hear, hear!"]—rested upon Germany, England, and Austria? Was it true that the only two other free countries in Europe refused to take their part in that butchery of Christians. If that were so, it infinitely deepened the shame that rested upon the British Government and the Britsh nation. Another part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement required explanation. He told them that for several days past the British and other Admirals had been warning the Greeks and Cretans not to attack Canea. He presumed those orders were reported home, and that the right hon. Gentlemen knew those threats were being made. Therefore, it was clear the blame for what had happened was not the blame of the Admiral but the blame of the Government at home. When the Government, a few days ago, asked for the confidence of the House and refused to give to the House the plain facts as to what were the orders given to the Admirals, those were the orders given. [Cheers.]. It was butchery—butchery of Christians, done to order by the Government of Great, Britain.
  914
  [Renewed cheers.] Those were the plain facts, and the man who was directly responsible for the action of the ships was not the sailor in command, but the First Lord of the Admiralty at home. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, he asked how was it we showed such zeal in butchery? The others were content with one vessel apiece. Two of them did not even fire a shot from their single vessels, but we fired more shots than the rest of the vessels put together. If we wanted to preserve the Concert of Europe one would have thought that we should have had more respect for the other nations than to outdo them. But the zeal for the Concert of Europe was a secondary matter; we wished to show the great naval strength of Great Britain, and so we were entitled before the world to this latest exhibition of our maritime supremacy. The people of this country had been taxed over and over again the last few years to increase the Navy. Did they suppose that this was the sort of purpose to which British ships and British men were to be put? The event of that Sunday afternoon would not soon be forgotten by the great mass of God-fearing people of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government had used its power to attack Christians, and they said they protected Christians; but when, in the course of protecting Christians had they ever shot a Turk? [Cheers.] Let the Government name a case. There had not been a case in all the disputes in Crete in which they had fired a tingle shot to defend the Christians against the Mussulmans, but they had seized the first available opportunity to attack the Christians in defence of the Turks at Canea—not to protect helpless Turks, but, to protect Turks in the possession of arms who had been engaged in sorties upon the Christians, and who were now our allies in operations of war against the Christians on the heights surrounding the town, and who had used the sheltering power of our batteries in order to fire on wounded Cretans as they were being taken away from the field. Those were the plain facts of the story, and under the circumstances it was the duty of every man in the House who had any feeling for the fame of England, and of Ireland, and of Scotland, who were thus dragged at England's heels—it, was the duty of every man in the House who

  915
  had any resepct for the power of Christendom, to give a vote in favour of the Motion as a protest against the bloodguiltiness of Her Majesty's Government. [Cheers.]
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that the whole basis of the ease presented to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs (Sir R. Reid) consisted of the most absolute misstatement of the facts. [Laughter.] What were the facts with regard to the present movement in Crete? It was by no means clear that the Cretan insurgents themselves, or the bulk of them, at any rate, wanted the intervention of Greece. But the action of Greece had forced the position in Crete, and had forced the hands of the Powers. It was by no means clear that the arrival of an. armed Greek force was desired by the Cretan Christians. They desired autonomy, equal laws, and a. Christian Governor, and those concessions had been made. The only excuse which could be given for the action of the Greeks was that there was a serious condition of anarchy in the island at the time of the intervention. The statement that since August last there had been massacres of Christians by Mussulmans in Crete was absolutely false. [Opposition laughter.] There was not a shred of evidence in support of it. The truth was that at this moment the persecuted, the outraged, and the massacred in Crete were the Mussulmans and not the Christians. [Opposition laughter and "Hear, hear!"] That was the simple truth, and if a European Commission was appointed to investigate into the facts, what he said would be absolutely confirmed. The only correspondent on the spot, the correspondent of The Times, gave evidence, not on hearsay, but quoted from Italian, Russian and French officers who had seen those cases of massacre of Mussulmans, men, women and children. In August last the Turkish Government gave way completely to the demands of the Powers, and granted to Crete an entirely new Constitution, which was gratefully accepted by both sections of the population.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is going outside the question before the House. I am quite aware there has been considerable latitude in this discussion, but I think the remarks of hon. Gentlemen are too remote from the Motion.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he was answering the hon. Gentleman who had stated that the new Constitution for Crete had been rendered null and void by the Turkish Government. That was another absolutely false statement. A large portion of the new Constitution had been put into force and was in operation. What was the result? The moment there appeared to be a chance of a settlement being made and tranquillity restored to the island, the Greek secret societies sent emissaries to Crete and poured 20,000 stands of arms into the island. It was in consequence of this that the Austrian Government last November proposed the blockade of the Piræus.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in pursuing that line of argument.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he must, therefore, confine himself to the statement that not, a single fact had been advanced in the Debate in support of the allegation that there had been massacres of Christians by Mussulmans and to justify the intervention of Greece. It was of the utmost importance to the Christians throughout the Ottoman Empire that justice should be done to the Mussulmans in Crete. ["Hear, hear!"] There had been no attack on the insurgents in the island; it. was the insurgents who had attacked Canea. [Laughter.] That town was crammed with defenceless Mussulman women and children, and the only protection they had from the insurgents was that afforded by the forces of the Powers. If the truth were only known in this country, the sympathy of that large section of the people which hon. Gentlemen opposite boasted that they had with them would disappear. He hoped the Government would not allow the so-called facts of hon. Members opposite to be poured upon the country without definite contradiction. The Government knew that the provocation came from the Christians, and they ought not to hesitate to lay the whole truth of the case before the country, so that the people might have before them both sides of the question. ["Hear, hear!"] After all, there were 70,000 Mussulmans in Crete, and they had as much right to live and to protection as the Christian population. Since the reduction of the Turkish garrisons the Cretan Mussulmans had been at the mercy of the Cretan Christians, except

  917
  in two or three towns, and the Powers were bound to protect these Mussulmans, between whom and outrage and wholesale butchery there now only stood the Marines of the allied Powers. For the reasons he had given he should earnestly vote against the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty had evaded the real facts which led to the firing by the ships on Sunday. The correct version was to be found in the official dispatch of Colonel Vassos, the Creek commander, who said:—
  "On receipt of intelligence that the Canea garrison was marching against the Christians, I sent a company of volunteers to co-operate against the 1,500 troops of the Canea garrison."
  That was the origin of the operations which occurred on Saturday and Sunday. It was perfectly obvious that the statements of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the threats of the Greek commander upon the towns occupied by the allied forces, and of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the insurgents were advancing their guns to a position from which they could command the inferior of Canea, were absolutely inconsistent with what had actually occurred. The facts were as given in the dispatch of Colonel Vassos, and the Government had deliberately run away from them. It had been ascertained that the act of war by the British ships was committed in obedience to some orders, and before the Debate was closed the House must insist on knowing by whom (hose orders were given. [Cheers.] They had the clearest proof that the advance of the Cretans was solely and entirely due to an attack begun by the Turkish troops—that the Turkish troops were allowed to go out from their fortresses under protection of the guns of the British Fleet and commit marauding outrages against the insurgents, and when the insurgents retaliated and defeated the Turks, then the British Admiral ordered his men to tire upon the Cretans and commit this terrible act of war. ["Hear, hear!"] They had a right (o say that the Government should deal with the facts and not indulge in such vague generalities as those which the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty had endeavoured to use as
  918
  soporifics to the common sense of that House and of the country. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter.] There had been a gross, wicked, and tyrannical interference with the position of these insurgents by the British Fleet under the orders of the British Government—["hear, hear!"]—and they should insist on having the fullest explanation of how this came about. They had a right to know what this act of war was to be followed by. Was this policy of turning loose the strongest weapons of naval warfare in the world to move down these poor Cretans to be followed by the blockading of the Piraeus, and an interference on the part of this country with the splendid attempt of the Creeks to obtain their liberty?
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid the accusation made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries of a stain being east on the British name was one which ought not lightly to be made in that House. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. and learned Friend had told them (hat he made no personal attack upon any Member of the Government, but if he were not attacking the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was he attacking? [Cheers.] Was he attacking the British Admiral? He believed hon. Members opposite would agree that it was not right for any hon. Member to get up and in the House attack their Admirals abroad unless they had the clearest evidence that they had done something which they ought not to have done. [Cheers.] He did not rise to continue this discussion, but rather to express a very earnest hope that it might be allowed to come to an end. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh!"] He believed there was not really any great or very important difference between the two sides of the House as to what they wished at the present moment. He believed they would all agree that this was a most critical moment for Europe as a whole. ["Hear, hear!"] They were standing upon a powder barrel, and if it once went off there might be terrible results to the whole of Europe. If, when the whole circumstances came to light, it was claimed that Her Majesty's Government had done anything contrary to the policy of this country, he should make no complaint of any attack upon them. He

  919
  gladly recognised that up to the present-time, in these difficult circumstances, the Leaders of the Opposition had adopted a wise and patriotic policy. ["Hear, hear!"] He spoke with a deep sense of the gravity of the situation, and of the importance to all of them throughout Europe of maintaining the Concert of Europe and of friendly and harmonious action between the Great Powers. Was that likely to be assisted by such language as they had heard that afternoon from some hon. Gentlemen opposite? [Cheers.] It would be in accordance with the traditions of English policy and of the House of Commons that they should, while negotiations were going on, give their support to the Government and leave to them the responsibility. ["Hear, hear!"] Discussions in that House at the present moment were, he maintained, dangerous, and he hoped the House would not imperil that peace which they all had at heart by continuing a discussion which could do no good and which might do incalculable harm. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEasked for distinct and decided declarations from Her Majesty's Government on two points. They had heard in the course of that Debate reference made to the circular of Lord Salisbury in which he declared, on the part of England, that he would not be a party to the employment of force against the Cretans unless there was a distinct understanding as to the future government of the Island of Crete. They had had no explanation whatever as to the tenor of that circular. Had Lord Salisbury, in the name of England, declared—what he thought every Englishman felt he ought to declare—that the future government of Crete assented to by Great Britain should in no sense whatever be connected with the Turkish Empire? ["Hear, hear!"] Unless he had made that declaration, then the sooner he and England withdrew from the Concert of Europe the better it would be for the liberties of the Cretans. ["Hear, hear!"] If he had made that declaration, then, he asked, why was the incident of yesterday permitted by Her Majesty's Government? [Cheers.] He had the highest opinion, as they all had, not only of the valour of the Admirals commanding their Fleet, but of their good sense and prudence. But the Admirals in this case
  920
  were merely the instruments of the Government. [Cheers.] It was not the Admirals they were attacking, but the Gentlemen who were sitting on that Front Bench opposite, and who by their silence—not what he would call a wise and patriotic reticence, but a shamed and humiliated reticence—showed that they were unable to explain the incident which had cast a stain on the name of England. ["Hear, hear!"] The other point on which he wished for a declaration from the Government was this—whether they were to understand that the Great Powers of Europe now occupied the four towns in Crete for the purpose of maintaining order. If that were so, he asked that the Government should make a distinct declaration that from those towns no Turkish garrison or troops should be allowed to make sorties. ["Hear, hear!"] Unless they took that responsibility upon themselves, what was the need of the presence of the allied forces in those towns? They were there to maintain order, and surely the first step towards that end was to see that the Turkish soldiers in those towns were kept in proper check and control. He believed that when the country became aware of the lame and lamentable explanation which had been offered by the Government they would say that if the Concert of Europe was to be maintained by means like this, the sooner they of Great Britain had done with it the better. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he should like to know whether the main and initial fact was not this—that the British Government, allied with the Powers, had practically prevented the Sultan from suppressing the insurrection in Crete, and had not thus rendered to the Cretan population service infinitely greater than any that would have been rendered if they had abstained from intervening between the contending parties? ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who had just spoken said we had made ourselves responsible for preventing sorties from the Turkish garrison.
  MR. STANHOPE: That they ought to have been prevented.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid if we made ourselves responsible for that, we must go further, and prevent attacks on

  921
  the garrison. It was generally supposed, and was a matter of history, that a garrison with an enemy outside made sorties to repel attack. This was not all the protection afforded to the insurgents, for had we not, by our occupation of the island, prevented the garrisons being reinforced, as otherwise they surely would have been by large bodies of troops from Constantinople? ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the House would pause well before condemning what had been done on this occasion, and he could not admit the alternative policy that had been offered to that of Her Majesty's Government, an alternative policy which would mean, if it meant anything, that we should abstain from all interference, and leave Turkey to suppress this insurrection according to her known and ordinary methods, by fire and sword, and by practices that to every civilised nation were infinitely worse even than lire and sword. ["Hear!"] He could not congratulate Members of the Opposition when, with singular ineptitude, they had no better alternative to offer. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDWARD MORTONdesired some definite information upon points as to which the House had only had assertions. Three assertions had been made on reports in newspapers whose correspondents had on other occasions been found to be right on matters of fact when Government statements were found to be wrong. The first of these was that a force of the Powers in the town of Canea had protected the Turks in making a sortie against the insurgents, who had not attacked them. The second was that the Powers had forced the insurgents out of a position which they had been allowed to maintain for four days previously. The third assertion made, to which a partial denial had been given, was that the Powers caused information to be conveyed to the commander of the Greek force that he would be opposed by force if he endeavoured to go into the interior of the island. Further, he asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he could give any information as to the allegation that a British gunboat had brought under the control of British ships a Greek vessel carrying supplies for the Greek troops in Crete? The answer of the First Lord of the Treasury was similar to that given by Mr. Disraeli
  922
  in the summer of 1876 when asked questions—that official dispatches did not contain the information. The First Lord of the Admiralty was the first to introduce party heat into the Debate—["oh, oh!"]—with a number of vehement assertions for which neither he nor his colleagues had given a particle of evidence. Twenty years ago there was a very similar position, and Mr. Disraeli gave denials of statements because they were not in official reports. One thing came to his mind in connection with the present situation. Only last year, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Lord Salisbury, making excuses for the helplessness of the Powers in dealing with the Armenian question, said:—
  "We at least possess no Army big enough to attack Turkey, and our Navy cannot sail across the mountains of Armenia."
  Here was a case where the Navy could and did sail to the seat of operations, and what did they find? Instead of making war on the accursed savages who massacred Christians whenever they could, they found that the British guns were turned against the Christians Lord Salisbury pretended he wanted to protect. ["Hear!"] One thing the Government could tell them—if not facts upon official information, they could state their intentions. It was a significant fact that the principal ships that fired, following the lead of the British ships, yesterday, were German ships. The French ships did not fire, the Italian ships did not fire; they were German ships that took part with British ships in the bombardment. He asked, Were the Government veering round to the views of the Emperor of Germany? Were they, by protecting the Turks in making sorties on the Christian insurgents, in bombarding the insurgents out of a place they had been allowed to occupy for four days, and in allowing Turkish guns to fire on the wounded—were they going back on their former position and to that of twenty years ago? Were they going to assist the Emperor of Germany in bombarding Greece itself? ["Oh, oh!"] Was that the significance of the German ships taking part with us in this bombardment? The First Lord of the Treasury had brought before the House in solemn tones the dangers of a European war if we did anything to protect our fellow-Christians in Turkey, and

  923
  it seemed a strange argument from a Government who only thirteen months ago were ready to face the world in arms for British interests alone. [Cheers.] It seemed to him a strange comment upon the Government views that, having refused to make war, they should proceed to commit murder. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Lubbock) said we were seated on a powder-barrel, and it was perhaps a similar idea with regard to their position in this country which had chastened the utterances of Her Majesty's Ministers. It was almost the same position twenty years ago, when a small Liberal minority faced a Government whose majority sometimes went up to 200, and that Government was supporting Turkey as the present Government did yesterday. For four years the minority carried on the unequal political war, and the first time the country had the opportunity of speaking, it was found to be overwhelmingly opposed to supporting Turkey and in favour of Turkey's Christian victims. He ventured to think that it was the memory of this that had imparted a somewhat chastened note to the speech of the Leader of the House, and he ventured to predict that, whatever might be the Government majority on this occasion, following the Concert of Europe and the multitude to do evil, the Government would be found to be writing and sealing its own doom; and, just as their predecessors did twenty years ago, they would find they were running up a severe and terrible reckoning for the future of their Party, when the country would have an opportunity of stating that in its view the Government had betrayed the national honour and gone counter to its wishes and deepest sympathies. ["Hear!"]
  *MR. CHARLES DARLINGrose chiefly to perform the humble office of conveying to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken some of that information for which he professed himself to be so anxious, and as the hon. Member had spoken in terms recognising the accuracy of the Press as contrasted with unreliable official information, he could give him information from a newspaper whose authority he would acknowledge—The Westminster Gazette. When the hon. Member asked why it was that only the German ships fired beside the British, The Westminster Gazette supplied the
  924
  answer in a telegram from Canea. He would therein find that at a meeting of the Admirals it was decided to open fire on the insurgents only after the latter refused to obey the injunction conveyed to them not to advance any further. The ships of the Powers were drawn up in line from east to west, and the British vessels were called on to fire first, and the German, Austrian, and Russian ships in succession. When the hon. Member found significance of the European Concert coming to an end in the fact that the French and Italian ships did not fire, let him further consult The Westminster Gazette telegram, and he would learn that the order to cease firing came before it was necessary for the French and Italian vessels stationed at the western extremity of the line to take part in the demonstration. Then came information that would be distasteful to Members opposite, for it was reported that none of the insurgents were killed by the cannonade, which caused merely material damage, nut even "moral and intellectual damage." [Laughter.] Hon. Members appealed to everybody to vote for this Motion, but would they be so ready to support it if they thought there was the remotest chance of it being carried? ["Yes."] What would be the result of carrying this Motion for Adjournment? It would be the very worst day's work possible for the Cretans, because if the Motion were carried the Concert of Europe, so far as we were concerned, would be at an cud. It would simply mean that we should withdraw from the Concert of Europe, but it would not mean that we were going to face the other Powers of Europe in arms on behalf of Greece. After all, this Motion for Adjurnment would not have clone unmitigated harm—as such Motions generally did—for it would have shown the Powers of Europe that there was in this country a very strong feeling in favour of doing even more than they were inclined to do on behalf of Crete. At all events, all the Powers of Europe—which were always sceptical—would be convinced, when they saw the Leader of the Opposition enthusiastically approving of a raid into the territory of a friendly Power—[laughter and cheers]—that this country had got rid somewhat of its "unctuous rectitude," and that would be something

  925
  gained. ["Hear, hear!"] He should like to ask, Did anyone doubt, after the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, that Crete would never again be handed back to Turkey? Did anyone doubt that the Powers of Europe had decided upon something in future for Crete, which could not be very far different, perhaps, from independence, or possibly integration in the kingdom of Greece? Could anyone doubt that practically the cause of Crete had gained very largely by the part taken by this country in preventing a European war? The Leader of the Opposition asked who were going to war and where would they fight? War would take place upon those frontiers of Greece which were nearest to Turkey. Did not. anybody know what would happen if this country were to stand aside, and the Turks be allowed to go at the Greeks in their own way? Who could pretend not to see that that would only be the beginning of a war in which France, Austria, Russia, and Italy would all take part? ["Why?"] Why? Because we were probably the only Power in Europe that did not want something that belonged to the Sultan. He thought that after this Debate there was not a Power in Europe but would recognise that unless they were held back a little this country could not be kept from breaking away from the Concert of Europe altogether, and therefore, while they were asking the people of this country to have patience a little longer, it would become the Powers of Europe on their part to see if they might not somewhat hurry their operations and give some evidence of their anxiety not only to solve this difficulty, but to solve it soon, being morally assured that if the wound were kept open for a little longer that conflagration would occur in Europe which no one but the right hon. Gentleman opposite doubted the possibility of. ["Hear, hear!"] The situation was not without a parallel. The bombardment of the insurgents was a regrettable incident, but it was not unlike the act of the Government of Italy, when the Royal troops performed the painful duty of tiring on the patriots at Aspromonte, and wounding their leader, Garibaldi.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMANgathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Deptford, in the first place, that he was an ardent
  926
  sympathiser with the Greek nation and Greek Government in this matter; in the second place, that this discussion would have done a great deal of good; and, in the third place, that Turkey would never be able to reassert her rule over Crete. He also gathered that it was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that the most desirable thing for them to contemplate was that the Concert of Europe should as speedily as possible come to a decision in this matter in order to put an end to the present condition of affairs. ["Hear, hear!"] He rose for the purpose of putting a question to the Government. They had no information, as he understood it, or only the very vaguest information, as to the circumstances of the last two or three days. A London paper appeared to have a correspondent who had sent fuller information than the Government possessed. He did not blame the Government and their lack of information on the matter. It was also impossible for them at present to lay before the House Papers on the subject of Crete, which would require further consideration or take time to print. But one thing, it appeared to him, might be given to Parliament which might go far to satisfy and soothe what was undoubtedly the somewhat ruffled condition of the public mind, and that was the instructions given to our Admiral as to his action in the present crisis. [Cheers.] They wanted to know what the position of the British Squadron there was, and what the position of the Admiral was. [Cheers.] Was he bound to do anything that the Concert of Europe directed him to do, and, if so, who represented the Concert of Europe at Canea, or any other point where action was necessary? [Cheers.] They wished particularly to know what his instructions were. He must be acting under some definite instructions from his own Government, as well as any instructions that might come from the so-called Concert of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper to-morrow with regard to the instructions to our Admiral, I will have the precedents looked into and see whether it can be done. But I may inform him that undoubtedly our Admiral is not bound to

  927
  act against his judgment with the majority. Unanimity among the Admirals is required.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid this incident could not be treated by itself without regard to the whole policy of this country in her dealings with Greece. It had been assumed by three speakers at least in. the Debate that Turkey, if left to herself, would be able to crush Greece. That was not the case. If the Turks were to try by sea to reach Crete with reinforcements they would fail in getting there. Their ships would be torpedoed and sunk, and the destruction of the Turkish power would be all the more rapid. The Greeks believed that the same would be the case with regard to the frontier of Thessaly, and this country was believed by Greece to have twice led the Concert of Europe to prevent the Greeks from obtaining provinces which would otherwise have fallen to them. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt, as a nation, we were the best friends of Greece in Europe, but it was not thought so by the Greeks, at any rate, as far as the Government was concerned. The future of the Eastern Mediterranean lay with Greece. The feeling of the people of this country was almost unanimously on the Greek side. But he was one who would do much to prevent the forcible partition of the Ottoman Empire. [Cries of"Oh!"] Yes,
  for he believed in the danger of war. ["Hear, hear!"] But we ought not to interfere by force against that side which had the whole future of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea at its command. Greece was anxious to be our friend; she was a maritime Power, and would be drawn by associations to desire alliance with us, and free scope should be given to the feeling of the people of this country on behalf of Greece. [Cheers.] The Opposition had been singularly tolerant of the foreign policy of the present Government. Not in the Mediterranean only, but in the Pacific, it had been marked by a great change in the position of the country. The foreign policy of the Government ought to be thoroughly debated on a better occasion than the present, but he could not be silent when the whole aspirations of the Greeks were involved, and felt bound to raise his voice to, if possible, prevent those aspirations from being used as the shuttlecock of party. [Cheers.]
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now Adjourn." The House divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 243.—(Division List—No. 40—appended.)
  The announcement of the figures was received with Ministerial cheers.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Arch, Joseph

  Davitt, Michael

  Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dillon, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lambert, George

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Langley, Batty

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumblnd.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lockwood, Sir Frank (York)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fowler, Matthew (Durham)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Burns, John

  Gilhooly, James

  McDermott, Patrick

  Burt, Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  McEwan, William

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Gold, Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Maden, John Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harrison, Charles

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Monk, Charles James

  Colville, John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Crombie, John William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Morton, Edward John Chalmers

  Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Walton, John Lawson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wayman, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  O'Kelly, James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Owen, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Parnell, John Howard

  Spicer, Albert

  Woodall, William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Woods, Samuel

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Strachey, Edward

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.

  Price, Robert John

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Thomas Ellis and Mr.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  McArthur.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ascroft, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Gretton, John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. Lanc. S. W.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Mauch'r)

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Heath, James

  Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Darling, Charles John

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

  Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.)

  Dixon, George

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hopkinson, Alfred

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Drucker, A.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bennett, Henry Currie Leigh-

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hozier, James Henry Cecil

  Bethell, Captain

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan

  Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

  Biddulph, Michael

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Thomas George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fielden, Thomas

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finch, George H.

  Kemp, George

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenrick, William

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fison, Frederick William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Butcher, John George

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, James A.

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lafone, Alfred

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Carson, Edward

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Forster Henry William

  Lecky, William Edward H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

  Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.

  Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.)

  Cayzer, Charles William

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Fry, Lewis

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

  Garfit, William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lubbook, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Clare, Octavias Leigh

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

  Gordon, John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  930

  931

  MeIver, Sir Lewis

  Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  McKillop, James

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Purvis, Robert

  Taylor, Francis

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thorburn, Walter

  Martin, Richard Bidduiph

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Richardson, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Milbank, Powlett Charles John

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Warkworth, Lord

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Round, James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Russell, Sir George (Berkshire)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wharton, John Lloyd

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Williams, Colonel R. Dorset

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

  Morrison, Walter

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Myers, William Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford,

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  William Walrond and Mr.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Anstruther.

  Pender, James

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Penn, John

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Resolutions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS. Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—

  ISSUE OF MONEY FOR THE WORKS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE.
  (1.) The Treasury shall issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such sums not exceeding in the whole five million four hundred and fifty-eight thousand pounds, as may be required by a Secretary of State for defraying the costs of the works specified in the schedule to this Act incurred at any time after the thirty-first of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six.

  (2.) Before any moneys are issued for the purpose of expenditure under any head in the schedule to this Act, a Secretary of State shall submit to the Treasury an estimate, with such details as may be required by the Treasury, of the expenditure under that head for which it is for the time being proposed to issue money, and shall therewith state the period within which it is proposed to expend the money so issued.

  (3.) There shall be no excess of expenditure under any head in the schedule above the amount stated therein for that head, unless the Treasury and Secretary of State are satisfied that the excess will be compensated by savings
  932
  on the expenditure under another head, so that no excess will be caused over the total expenditure specified in the schedule, and in such cases the savings may be applied in payment of the excess.

  MR. T. LOUGHmoved, in sub-section (1), to leave out the words "five million four hundred and fifty-eight thousand" and to insert the words "three million." He said that one of the precedents on which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill most relied was that of the Barracks Act of 1890. According to the statement made under that Act there was, on March 31st last, £1,143,000 unexpended under the Act, and if the expenditure this year had proceeded at the same rate as in the two previous years there would still be enough money in the hands of the military authorities for two years more. The amount asked for now was unnecessarily large. He suggested that the sum should be restricted to three millions, because the whole of this expenditure practically passed out of the control of that House the moment the Bill had passed through Committee. The amount for the purchase of the land on Salisbury plain, and about half-a-million for ranges, were the only precise amounts that had been mentioned, and which enabled them to see how the expenditure was built up. He protested against the small items being included, which should properly come

  933
  upon the ordinary Estimates. If this Amendment were adopted, there would still be sufficient money left to the Government for everything that was wanted to be done under the Bill. The small items would then be excluded from the Bill, with the result that a great deal of waste and extravagance might be avoided. Loans of such great magnitude should only be made for large works, such as those in the Naval Works Bill. They had not been satisfied with the answers they had received on this subject, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said he did not think the hon. Member had made out a very good ease for the change he proposed. The hon. Member had had an opportunity of hearing what were the grounds on which they asked for the present sum, which, on two occasions, he had himself endeavoured to justify. The hon. Member's suggestion was that a sufficient allowance would be a million for barracks, a million for ranges (including accommodation for manoeuvring and mobilisation), and a million for defence works, and he tried to justify this proposal by stating that there were unexpended balances still left from the Barracks Act. His hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had already explained that, although a sum of about £780,000 was not actually expended, that sum had been already allocated to certain works which, if not actually in progress, would be in progress directly. That did not in the slightest degree relieve them from putting up barracks in other places provided for in the schedule. He did not think it was the ease at all, that there were many small works in the barracks item. It was desirable not only that large barracks should be erected, but that smaller barracks at the coaling stations should also be provided for by the Bill. He knew nothing that was more likely to conduce to waste or extravagance than the proposal of the hon. Member, which would compel them to get forward piecemeal with these works. The sum they now asked for was one which had been cut down to the smallest possible dimensions. It was stated that the Bill was without precedent. That was not the case. This Bill was absolutely in accordance with precedent, and he
  934
  thought it was certainly the most convenient plan that the House should be able to criticise the scheme as a whole, and to decide upon it as a whole.
  MR. D. F. GODDARDsupported the Amendment, because it seemed to him they should take every opportunity of opposing the expenditure of money which ought not, in his opinion, to be covered by loan at all. It was admitted that the whole of the money asked for under this Bill was not to be raised on loan, but what he and his hon. Friends desired was a definite statement as to what part of the money was to be raised on loan and what part was not to be so raised. The right hon. Gentleman defended the system of terminable annuities by stating that it laid the whole scheme before the House. That was not a very satisfactory answer. He could not see why, if the Government had a definite seheme, they should not state whether they intended to carry it out by way of loan or in one year's Estimates. If they stated their scheme hon. Members would have an opportunity of judging of it without being pledged to a term of years, as now proposed. He was confident it would be generally conceded that some of the items in the five-and-a-half millions sterling ought not to be covered by loan extending over a period of anything like 30 years. £66,000 was asked for converting Woking female prison into barracks. He did not think that such an item for such a purpose should be raised by way of loan. Neither did he think that the item for the replacement of huts should be raised by loan. If any municipal authority were to come to the House of Commons or to the Local Government Board and ask for sanction to borrow money for such a purpose, and to spread the repayment over 30 years, sanction would be at once refused. The loan system was calculated to confuse the minds of the taxpayers as to the amount that was really being spent, and it ought not to be carried too far. There were some items specified in the Bill as to which they had but very scanty information. There were, for instance, the items of £1,120,000 for defence works, and £1,149,000 for ranges, including accommodation for manœuvres. The military charges were constantly increasing, and the House had, therefore, a right to ask to be supplied with the fullest

  935
  details. On these grounds he felt obliged to support the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid that, although he supported the Bill and should vote with the Government in most, if not all, of the divisions that would be taken upon it, there was one point upon which they might reasonably ask the Government to give an assurance. Hon. Members experienced great difficulty in ascertaining the total military and naval expenditure in any particular year. Ultimately they knew how much had been spent in a given 12 months, but they did not know it for a long time afterwards. He, therefore, asked the Government to undertake that the Ministers responsible for the various departments should, when making their annual statements, mention the estimated amount to be spent out of loan money in the course of the year, and also state the sum which had been spent out of loan money in the past year. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYthought the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Islington as to the expenditure on short-lived work was one deserving of attention. Government compelled local authorities to pay off borrowed money according to a well-defined schedule, that was to say, they allowed local authorities to borrow money for buildings for a certain number of years, but they did not allow them to borrow money for furniture and many other purposes for anything like the same period. If the Government laid down such a rule for local authorities, they ought to adhere to it themselves. Much of the expenditure now proposed must be very short-lived. There was, for instance, the expenditure for barracks. That must be short-lived, and the repayment of the money borrowed ought not to be spread over so long a time as 30 years. There were many things for which money was to be obtained on loan which would be non-existent before 30 years expired. Much had been said about the schedule. As a matter of fact it was so much waste paper, for it would not appear in the Act of Parliament, and there was nothing to cause it to be adhered to in any way. Under Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, the money could be spent as it was thought proper to spend it.
  936
  He proposed to move as an Amendment later on that the Estimate should be presented to the House rather than to the Treasury. If it were presented to the House, the House would have some control over the money; but, seeing that it was proposed by the Bill to refer it to the Treasury, the House would lose all control, and they were therefore entitled to ask the Government to diminish the amount of the loan.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid it had never been intended to include in the loan works that were not of a permanent nature. Barrack furniture, guns, or temporary equipments were not included. It was proposed to apply the loan entirely to permanent works, such as the structure of barracks, of defence works, and the purchase of land. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean he might say that, in regard to loans, it had always been the custom of the War Office to provide Parliament with a statement of the sums actually expended each year. In the present instance the War Office proposed to supplement that statement by another annual statement of what was proposed to be spent. The House, therefore, would have complete control over the money, and would be able to review the progress of the works from time to time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to provide au annual statement of the amount proposed to be spent was satisfactory, so far as it went. But his main reason in supporting the Amendment was, that a sufficient justification for not placing this expenditure on the annual Estimates had not been given by the Government. The only excuse advanced was that contractors desired to be paid according as they proceeded with their work. But surely that could not be accepted as a valid reason for the course proposed by the Government. He was perfectly certain that any contractor would be quite willing to undertake any work in the sure faith that Parliament, on the application of the Minister responsible, would vote the money. He thought a protest ought to be made against this growing practice of withdrawing Army and Navy expenditure from the detailed criticism

  937
  afforded by the Estimates, which, if persisted in, would lead to a complete revolution in the forms of the House.
  MR. W. WOODALLsaid he desired to call attention to the fact that the Act was intended to be retrospective.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That does not arise on this Amendment, but on a subsequent Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGthought his hon. Friend was justified in moving the Amendment, both as a protest against this growing Army expenditure, for which no possible justification had been advanced by the Government, and against the withdrawal of the particular expenditure proposed by the Bill from the control of the House. The late Mr. Childers, who was a past master in all financial questions, had denounced as bad and improper the policy which the Government were now pursuing of attempting to oust from the control of Parliament the expenditure on those military works. The Barracks Act, which was passed when the Conservatives were last in office, afforded an ample illustration of the impropriety of the course which the Government were now pursuing. The Government had demanded under that Act far more than they had required. As large a sum as £778,000 had been left over, and no explanation whatever had been given as to the purposes to which it had been applied. He thought that a most objectionable method of dealing with public money. What guarantee was there that the same thing would not happen under this Bill? What guarantee was there that the Government, having obtained money on the pretence of wanting it for one purpose did not spend it on another? Anyone who looked at the schedule of the Bill must see the flimsy character of the proposed works. In truth, the Bill, like many more Bills of the Government, was a sham. He was sure the country would repudiate it in the most emphatic way on the very first opportunity.
  MR. J. BRIGGcomplained that there were not sufficient details forthcoming as to the new hospitals which it was proposed to build in Dublin, Edinburgh, and London. Had they no military hospitals there before? What was the cost to be? They had no information as to the items which they were asked to vote. He looked jealously
  938
  upon these hospitals. It was the beginning of a very large and expensive item, which they might have to follow up for years. There was another item, and that related to Winchester Barracks, which had been destroyed by fire. Was there no insurance on Winchester Barracks?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled that the hon. Member was going outside the Vote.
  MR. WOODALLasked what amount of work had already been executed?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): I have already answered that across the Table. The sum is £86,000.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid it had been admitted that there was a sum of money from last year which had not been expended. They ought to know about that before they voted a further large sum. He thought the building of barracks might be done for a much smaller sum than the amount asked for. The point he wanted specially to make was with reference to temporary earthworks. These works would not last 30 years. The Palmerston Works did not last 30 years.
  MR. J. GILHOOLYasked for information as to the proposed works in Bantry Bay—whether they were going to make the line of railway from Kenmare?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled that this was a matter which could not be dealt with at that time.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 47.—(Division List, No. 41.)
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  MR. LOUGHproposed, in sub-section (1), to leave out the words "at any time,' and to insert the words "within seven years." He said that as the Bill read at present it was provided that this very large sum of money might be issued to defray the cost of the works specified in the schedule, incurred at any time. He,

  939
  therefore, proposed to substitute for that "incurred within seven years from the passing of this Act." His object was to oblige the War Office, if the money was not spent within a reasonable lapse of time, to come back to the House. Under the Bill as it stood the War Office might carry out the works in the Schedule or not, they might spend all the money or not, as they liked; in fact, they might do what they liked with it. The expenditure might be spread over 40 or 50 years. What was the effect of that? He believed that the money granted under the Act of 1872 was only exhausted a year or two ago—indeed, he believed there was even now some little balance of £50 or £60 still unspent. The money might dribble out of the Treasury in the same way under this Bill, and he proposed that there should be a limit of time fixed. The reason why he had suggested seven years was because the last Barracks Act was passed in 1890. The effect of putting in a limit was that if, for any reason, the War Office found it was not discreet or wise to spend all the money, at the end of seven years they would have to come back to the House and show what had been spent, and to leave it to the House to say whether the Act ought to be extended. The right hon. Gentleman opposite might say that they ought to trust the War Office, but he would point out that it was absolutely certain that the right hon. Gentleman and his Party would not be at the War Office at the end of seven years. So that he was really going a long way to meet the right hon. Gentleman by giving him time to spend the money.
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he hardly realised the ground on which the hon. Gentleman made this proposal. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the present Government would have quitted the War Office before the seven years he proposed had expired; but supposing that were the case, and supposing the suggested limit of time were put on this expenditure, it would be exhausted before the Party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged came into power, and they would have nothing to spend under this loan. The hon. Gentleman suggested that unless a limit of time of this kind were put upon the expenditure, the War Office would be in a position to spend the money or not as they pleased; but the hon.
  940
  Gentleman seemed to forget that this money could only be expended for purposes specified in the Bill, and, therefore, it was not a matter in which the War Office could do as they pleased. He did not see how the hon. Gentleman could expect to gain anything by putting in a limit of seven years. No limit of time was imposed under the Barracks Act or under the Act of 1888. Reference had been made to the Cardwell Loan of 1872, and it had been said that up to a short time ago the purposes for which that loan was granted had not been fulfilled. That was rather an argument against the Amendment, as the delay that took place in carrying out the purposes of the Cardwell Loan proved that unexpected difficulties might be encountered in the execution of works, and that it might be impossible to complete them within a fixed period. A considerable amount of the money provided under this Bill had to be spent abroad. The acquisition of land and building operations abroad were often attended with long delays. If a limit of seven years were imposed the War Office would very likely find at the end of that time that some of the contemplated work was not completed, and it would then not be possible to finish it with the money provided by the loan. It was, however, the intention of the War Office—and he believed that that intention would be carried out—to spend this money within seven years, but it was not expedient to fix that or any other limit.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsupported the Amendment on the ground that Parliament ought not to part for an indefinite period with its right to control the expenditure of the War Office or of any other spending department. The Financial Secretary had rather given his case away by saying that it was the intention to complete these works within seven years. He thought his hon. Friend would be willing to substitute eight years or even nine for the number mentioned in the Amendment. It was undesirable to withdraw for ever large sums of money from the control of Parliament, whether there were precedents for such withdrawal or not. He admitted that it might not be convenient for the War Office to come to Parliament every year and to place a certain portion of this sum upon the Estimates. That might put the War Office in

  941
  a very difficult position, and might interfere with the proper execution of the works. But it was a different thing to give the War Office absolute control over this money for all time. Supposing that at the end of, say, seven years, the money was not, exhausted, and that if should be thought that there had been wasteful and extravagant expenditure, surely Parliament ought to have an opportunity of interfering. There was no certainty that the hon. Member opposite would keep the position of Financial Secretary for seven years, or that his successor would have the same high reputation that he had. If they parted with ail control over this money, and if the barracks to be erected in Dublin should be built on an insanitary site, hon. Members who might wish to call attention to the matter would be told that they could not do so, and that Parliament was committed to this expenditure and had no right of revision. Circumstances might easily arise in consequence of a change of Ministry, or even of one Minister, or of a change of opinion respecting the works themselves, which would render it desirable and expedient to reconsider the sub-jest after the lapse of seven years or of some such period. If the work had been well done the War Department would lose nothing by coming to Parliament. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would consent to fix a time when Parliament could again be heard on this subject.
  MR. DILLONregretted that the hon. Member for Islington had named in his Amendment so long a period as seven years. He did not admit that the War Department had made out a good case at all for this Works Loan Bill. He did not see why the Government should not ask every year in the Estimates for the amount of money they intended to spend in the year, and thus give Parliament an opportunity of criticising their polity and plans. He was in favour of the Amendment, but thought that two or three years ought to be the limit instead of seven years. They had heard that day of a loan under the Barracks Act passed in 1890, which was not nearly expended at the present hour. [Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS: "It is all appropriated."] Yes, but it was not spent. He held that every man who was in a responsible position and intrusted with the expenditure of money should be viewed with suspicion by Parliament.
  942
  That was the principle upon which the Estimates were submitted for discussion. No Minister had a right to plead that the same trust should be put in him as would be put in him were he dealing with private affairs. The way in which the Barracks Act Loan had been used supplied the strongest possible argument against the course which it was now proposed to take. It afforded the strongest illustration of the evils that might arise from giving a free hand to a Minister for a number of years. In the case of the Royal Barracks in Dublin the original proposal was to construct—
  *MR. BRODKICKasked whether the question of the Royal Barracks in Dublin could be raised now. He thought it could only be dealt with on the Vote for the interest on the Works Fund in the Estimates of the year.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that he understood the hon. Member for East Mayo was only referring to the subject by way of illustration.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was so. The Financial Secretary had, quoted the Barracks Act as a precedent for granting this new loan without any limit of time, but it really ought, to be a warning to them not to do so. Although the immense sum of £160,000 had been paid over, the barracks were still in the most unsatisfactory and insanitary condition. Then, again, the proceedings in connection with the Royal Barracks had been most extraordinary. Some portions of the barracks had been floored at great cost and then pulled up, but after an enormous expenditure of money the barracks were still left in a very unsatisfactory condition. He did not think that a stronger argument could be offered for having those sums on the annual Estimates than the fact of the Committee being asked now to sanction this large sum for an unlimited period.
  MR. GODDARDthought that the Amendment was a reasonable one. It appeared to him as if the Government had not much confidence in the country supporting their proposals when they objected to the insertion of so reasonable a time limit. He believed that there was not a work mentioned in the schedule which could not be carried out within the seven years mentioned in the Amendment. It was unreasonable to ask for a long extension of time in these

  943
  matters. The Financial Secretary had referred to the works that were carried out in foreign stations. There might be some difficulty as to completing purchases of land abroad, and so on; but surely, when the Government put forward a programme of certain works, they had formed some conclusion as to whether they could carry them out, and none of them were of so extensive a character as to involve the acquisition of a very large tract of land. Most of the works were in the nature of enlargements, replacements, and additions to garrisons; and he asserted that there was no weight in the argument that in connection with those parts of the works situated at foreign stations there should be any real difficulty in acquiring land. Though, as he knew, there might be some slight difficulty in acquiring land in foreign places, men of business were enabled to overcome that difficulty with comparative ease, and no negotiations, according to his experience, had taken seven years. Therefore a time limit should be inserted with regard to works of a definite character, because it was undesirable to lay down a programme which might not be completed within 20, 30, or 40 years.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that if he were disposed to find fault with the Amendment it was that seven years was too long a period. He understood that this was a matter of urgency, and he thought that five years were long enough. The Committee had voted 5½ millions, but in his judgment the best plan would be to vote annually that portion of the sum which had not been spent in the preceding year. He believed that all those works, however urgent, could be carried out in a year or two years. He noticed that there was £59,000 for hospital accommodation at Sierra Leone; but knowing as he did that station, he could see reasons why perhaps in time the military authorities should abandon Sierra Leone as an hospital centre; and in a year or two they might suggest a healthier spot. After being half way through the alterations which were contemplated, sanitary conditions might prompt an abandonment of Sierra Leone. He objected to money being spent on a site and buildings that could not be permanently guaranteed. The same remark applied to Aldershot, which was, on the other hand, a healthy place. £150,000
  944
  were to be spent for continuation and replacement of huts in peramanent materials; but 40,000 acres were to be acquired as a manœuvring ground on Salisbury Plain. Perhaps in a twelvemonth a large portion of this £150,000 might be justifiably diverted to Salisbury Plain instead. Again, St. Lucia was to be put into a stronger position; but there was no guarantee that strategists would not alter their opinion six months hence; and therefore he objected even to one-tenth of the £250,000 in 1897 being spent on St. Lucia. The money might be invested, and the House of Commons ought to be in a position to review this expenditure every year. If the Committee gave the Government a blank cheque, they deprived the House of Commons of opportunities of effective criticism once a year as to how the money was being spent or wasted. Why the Government opposed this Amendment he could not understand, except that possibly some of the War Office authorities were a bit doubtful of some of the sites for barracks and hospitals which they had recommended, and hoped by this blank cheque to do what they would not attempt to do if they were tied up to an annual, or a three, five, or seven years' limit. As matters stood, the House of Commons was simply asked to hand over 5½ millions to the military authorities to do what they pleased with it.
  MR. DILLON,on the point of order, said the Amendment did not require the Government to spend the whole of the 5½ millions within seven years. On the contrary, if they did not spend it all, the portion which was unspent they should account for to Parliament.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Committee had only had one answer from the Government, and that of the most unsatisfactory character. The hon. Member gave away his case. He said the Government intended to spend the whole money within seven years. But, mark what the staple of the answer was. It was, We want no limit of time, because the money can only be spent on the purposes specified. If the hon. Member looked at sub-section 3 of the clause he would see that the specification had not a shred of meaning in it. If the Government spent more on the barracks they might spend more on the ranges; or, if they spent less on the

  945
  ranges they might spend more on Salisbury Plain. They might throw it into the sea, as they pleased. There was no guarantee that the money should be spent in accordance with the schedule. If the Government wanted to shorten the proceedings they should accept the Amendment.
  *MR. BRODRICKrepeated that the Government could not accept the Amendment. They had undertaken to lay before the House every year, not merely a statement of the expenditure incurred during the past year, but an estimate of the probable expenditure for the subsequent years, thus giving the House, on two occasions an opportunity of investigating and criticising the performances and proposals of the Government. The Estimate for the year would, in every case, he stated by whoever was responsible for introducing the Estimates. The subject could be criticised upon that Vote, and it could be criticised again on the interest taken on account of the works voted, which would have to be charged each year.
  MR. FLYNNpointed out that the House of Commons could not repudiate the interest due. That would be a most ungracious proceeding.
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid the schedule showed that there was no practical difficulty in coming to the House for further money if the work was not completed. That was in fact the present state of things. The very note put into the schedule referred to "works not completed." But no inconvenience was stated to have been caused by such interruption to the carrying on of those works. Application was now made to increase the capital sum originally dedicated to particular works, and if there was no inconvenience in reference to the application there could be no inconvenience in coming, at seven years, for the purpose of applying for further money. It was more than possible that the defence works might get out of date in seven years, looking to the constant advances in artillery and military science. He had seen in his day works constructed at Gibraltar which were absolutely useless at the present time. In seven years time the whole system of defensive works might be so entirely changed that this House should be called upon to
  946
  exercise a control over the capital expenditure. So in regard to barracks. There was a revolution every five years in sanitary arrangements. They could not tell what might be the state of science seven years hence in regard to military works and sanitation, and yet the House of Commons was called upon to hand over to the Department five millions of money without any specification except for a comparatively small sum. For these and other reasons, he submitted that the control of Parliament over the expenditure ought to be maintained, and if the capital had not been spent in the seven years, that then a further opportunity should be afforded to Parliament to review the situation.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYappealed to the Committee to now come to a decision on the Amendment. He thought that what had fallen from his right hon. Friend should have had the effect of shortening the discussion.
  MR. McKENNAhad been satisfied to some extent, though not wholly, by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that hon. Members would have the opportunity of discussing the matter each year on the Estimates, as to the amount that had been expended or was to be expended. If that were so, and they were each year to vote upon it—
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, no, not to vote upon it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. McKENNA: Then what was the use of discussing the matter if there was to be no vote. ["Hear, hear!"] On that ground alone he should be prepared to support the Amendment.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that there could be no vote again on moneys that had been already voted by Parliament; but the work of the expenditure could be criticised on the Estimates, and it would be open to hon. Members to move a reduction on the Estimates or to move a reduction in the Under Secretary's salary if they disagreed with the action of the War Office in the matter.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that that did not meet his main objection. One of the details of the Bill, as had been said, was to fortify London. Now, under the Bill as it stood the whole of the five and a half millions might be spent on that one purpose, if the Government chose so to decide. ["Hear, hear!"] If there had

  947
  been an opportunity of voting every year on that work—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! That point does not arise on the Amendment, which is to limit the expenditure of the money within seven years. ["No, no!"] If this Amendment is carried the whole of the money would have to be spent in seven years. [Mr. LOUGH: "No, no."]
  MR. McKENNAsaid the words were that the money should be expended as might be required by the Secretary of State, not necessarily that the whole amount must be spent in seven years. The object was to limit the works to seven years.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the argument of the hon. Member was that every year this proposal was to be discussed on the Estimates, but that was not met by the Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAgranted that the point was not met by the Amendment, but he certainly understood that the right hon. Gentleman promised that hon. Members would have an opportunity of discussing the matter every year on. the Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the objects he had in supporting the Amendment was to put a check on the extravagance of the War Office. He had by no means been satisfied with the reasons the Government had given to show why the Amendment should not be accepted. Unless some limit of time was imposed the Committee would be giving the Government a blank cheque for five and a half millions to spend when they liked and how they liked. It would be possible even for them to devote the whole of the money to one purpose. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that when he entered the Chamber a short time before he ascertained by inquiry that an impression did prevail among many hon. Members on that side of the House that the Under Secretary had promised that the matter would be brought up each year in the Estimates, and that hon. Members would be able to discuss and vote upon it. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] But now they knew that was not to be the case. The proposal to place some limit of time on the expenditure of the money and on the works was a most reasonable and legitimate one. Supposing a General Election took place on the morrow and the Liberals got into
  948
  power, though they were in for six years they would not have anything to do with this wasteful expenditure—no, not even to the extent of a shilling. [Cheers, and Ministerial laughter.] If they did he would as cheerfully vote against them as he intended to vote then against right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] Then supposing after this time that right hon. Gentlemen opposite again came into power, they would have the whole of this money at hand, but by that time the condition of things might have wholly changed. ["Hear, hear!"] He was fully of opinion that there ought to be some limit of time inserted in the Bill, and the only hesitation he had in voting for the Amendment of his hon. Friend was that seven years was too long a period. He should have preferred a much shorter period—say four or five years, for it should not, he thought, be so long as possibly to extend the matter to other Parliaments. ["Hear, hear!"] For those reasons he should vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'at any time' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 68.—(Division List, No. 12.)
  MR. LOUGHproposed, in sub-section (1), to leave out the words "ninety-six," and to insert the words "ninety-seven." He said he anticipated no objection to this Amendment. As the clause stood loans would date from the end of the last financial year instead of, as they should, from the end of the present financial year, 31st March 1897. He could hardly think that the figures 1896 had been inserted intentionally, he thought it must be a mistake or misprint and, if so, he would be glad that he interrupted, but if the date 1896 was intended then it appeared to him a monstrous proceeding. What was the position of the right hon. Gentleman at the end of 1896? He had an amount of £1,150,000 of the Barrack Loan of 1890 according to the average expenditure of the previous years, and yet with this large amount in hand he brought in this Bill giving it a retrospective character in regard to the date from which it should start. The Under Secretary had answered a question to-day, and probably that answer would enter into the reply

  949
  now. He said that a certain amount of this money had already been expended, some £80,000 or £90,000. It was a most improper proceeding if any money had in this way been expended, it touched the point of the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure of the kingdom. It was a monstrous thing that any money should be expended under a Hill before that Bill had been discussed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say that the amount of £90,000 was wanted, and if that were so, then it might have been obtained in two ways. It might have been taken from the last loan, or, better still, it might have been placed on the Estimates, and then it would have come before the House in a legitimate way. To ask the House to give the Bill a retrospective character would be to set a bad precedent on these financial operations. He appealed to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor to say if there was any precedent for such a proposal to meet a rash expenditure of the War Office.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid of the two courses the hon. Member suggested in regard to the expenditure since March 31, 1896, he was at a loss to know which was the more objectionable. First the hon. Member said the money might have been provided out of the balance of the Barrack Act 1890, thus diverting the money to different services altogether to those contemplated in that Act. The hon. Member's proposal was that the Government having judged themselves that the money under the Barracks Loan of 1890 should be applied to one service should deliberately apply it to another. That was a course the Government did not think it ought to take. An alternative suggestion was that the requirements should be included in the Votes for the year. The Bill was introduced last year and would have been carried had time permitted. The proposal to put the money on the Votes was negatived for the best of all possible reasons, that the House and the Public Accounts Committee should be able to judge of the expenditure on the different services, but to spread part of the expenditure over the Votes of 1896–7 and then subsequently to transfer the major portion of a large sum to the Bill would be an unsound system of finance and one that a Minister would adopt if he desired to hide what had been done from public criticism.
  950
  It was a course that the Public Accounts Committee would certainly condemn and obviously would be a financial inconvenience. For these reasons the course proposed in the Bill had been adopted.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid though he supported the Bill he did not quite think this retrospective proposal was one to be commended. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether there had been a precedent for a Loan Bill being brought before the House when part of the money borrowed under it had been already spent. Was this £86,000 spent upon new works?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid the sum of £86,000 was expended entirely upon fortifications under the Imperial Defence Act. The whole of the money provided by the Estimates having been expended, the War Office was in the position last year of either absolutely stopping the works which were going on, and in respect of which some contracts had been made, or of having to anticipate by a month or two the sanction of Parliament to continue the works. The latter course was adopted, it being absolutely necessary to take that step, and the sum of £86,000—wholly for fortifications—was expended in that way.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that this £86,000 was spent in continuation works which had been undertaken by the Imperial Defence Act?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes.
  MR. BUCHANANremarked that that answered his question as to whether these were new works or not, but he should like to have an answer to his query as to whether there was any precedent for bringing forward a Loan Bill borrowing money, and spending part of that money before the Bill had been passed?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)replied that there was. In the autumn of 1895 the House of Commons sanctioned the principle of the Uganda Railway, and a small sum was voted to commence operations. On the basis of that sanction a certain sum, he thought over £100,000, was expended in the first eight months of 1896, before the Act of last Session authorising the loan of £3,000,000 for the purpose became law, and such anticipatory expenditure

  951
  was included in that Loan Act. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BUCHANANadmitted that that, to a certain extent, was a precedent; but the assent of Parliament was given in the autumn of 1895.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So it has been for these works. The schemes of which the works comprised in the £86,000 form part, had all been previously sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The assent of Parliament to the grant of the money had not been given.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The money had been spent upon the strength of the sanction already mentioned.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether, it being found this further expenditure was necessary, the regular method would not have been either to have obtained the money from the savings of other War Office Votes, or to have come before the House with a Supplementary Estimate on the subject?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, No. As his right hon. Friend had said, it would have complicated the accounts in a manner that would have made them absolutely unintelligible to Parliament. They thought it a more regular financial proceeding, as Parliament had sanctioned the works and a large expenditure upon them had been by loan, that they should be carried on by loan in the same way.
  MR. BUCHANAN,whilst recognising the force of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, remarked that the process which had been adopted weakened the control of Parliament over the expenditure of public money. He presumed that there was no more money left under the Imperial Defence Act for the completion of these works. It was thought proper, however, that the works should be completed, and money, not authorised by Parliament, had been expended for their completion, upon the trust that this Bill would be passed and the money made available. Surely that was a somewhat irregular process.
  MR. McKENNAobserved that, as he recollected the matter, it was stated, in reply to a Question last July or August, that this £86,000 had been spent upon Irish harbours. They now understood
  952
  from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that money was found partly under the Imperial Defence Act. But there was no authority in that Act to expend any money for the defence of Irish harbours, and there had never been any Parliamentary authority for the expenditure of a single penny of public money upon Irish harbours. In the case of the Uganda Railway the issue was brought before the House whether they would or would not sanction the expenditure, and the House agreed to do so. The principle was accepted, and the amount agreed upon, on a Supplemental Estimate, and the money subsequently ordered to be raised by loan, the expenditure since then having been defrayed out of the loan. In the case of the Uganda Railway there was a preliminary vote by the House for the expenditure of the money, but there had been no such vote for the expenditure of money in respect of Irish harbours, and no authority under the Imperial Defence Act for such expenditure. The money had been expended in the hope of the passing of a certain Measure. It was anticipated that the Measure would have passed last year, and upon that anticipation money had been expended without any prior authority as to principle or amount. In such a ease as that he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman was without any defence to the Amendment put forward by his hon. Friend that this Act should not be retrospective. He did not think that the procedure of that House in relation to the provision for the construction of the Uganda railway was analogous to that which had been adopted in the present case. In the present case a portion of the money asked for by this Bill had been already spent, and now the Government came down to the House with this Measure and asked that under it sanction should be given to their illegal expenditure. He should certainly support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid that he had two great objections to this Bill. In the first place a portion of the money asked for under this Bill had been already spent before it was voted. There could be no excuse for the War Department having adopted such a course. They knew that the money would be required, and they ought to have come to the House and asked for

  953
  sanction to spend it. Instead of taking that course they spent a portion of the money, and at the end of the financial year came to the House of Commons and asked for their sanction for an expenditure which had already been incurred. He regarded that as being a most irregular course of proceeding. He did not know whether the War Department had any experience of the principles which regulated local expenditure, but he might inform the right hon. Gentleman opposite that in case a local authority spent money in advance of their right to do so, the Local Government Board made the matter a serious cause of complaint. He thought that that was a sound principle of finance, and that it should be enforced against Government Departments as well as against local bodies. It was impossible under our present system to know precisely where we stood in the matter of these loan Bills, or to know whether they were sanctioning a past or a future expenditure. These loan Bills overlapped each other to such an extent that it was impossible to say when one loan was finished with or another began. It would be far better if one loan were to be cleared off distinctly and definitely before another was begun. From the Bill itself no definite information could be obtained. In his opinion they ought to vote money for future expenditure only. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HARRISONsaid that he regarded this question as a very serious one, involving as it did the financial procedure of that House. It was not the ordinary case of an Estimate being slightly exceeded owing to the absolute necessities of the work, and then the Government asking Parliament to sanction that overdraft. In this case the expenditure was made under two Acts, the Imperial Defence Act, 1888, and the Barracks Act, 1890. Both Acts devoted not merely a capital sum to the work in question, but, by express enactment, declared that although amounts might, under certain conditions, specified under certain heads, be amalgamated and applied to other heads or subhead of expenditure, yet that the excess should not cause the total expenditure to exceed the total sum specified in the Schedule. There was, therefore, only a vote of the capital sum, but an express statutory prohibition against any excess over that sum being
  954
  paid without the sanction of Parliament. In his view no Government Department should be allowed to expend money without the express sanction of Parliament. In the face of distinct statutory prohibitions, it might well be that as Parliament was voting a capital sum to be raised on loan for the purposes of these sums, the House might in principle have stipulated that the Department should be expressly prohibited spending more over a period of years unless they came back to Parliament and obtained sanction. In these circumstances he should certainly support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that he thought that the House was entitled to some more definite explanation from the Government as to the reasons that had led them to adopt the course they had done in reference to this matter, and why they had incurred an expenditure which had never been authorised by Parliament. The Government were endeavouring by means of this Bill to cover up the illegal conduct of which they had been guilty. He had never heard of any previous Measure founded upon the principles upon which this Bill was based.
  MR. CHANNINGthought they were entitled to some explanation. They had no information before them, it was all wrapped up in this mysterious policy of Conservative Ministries, which consisted of asking for vast sums of which no particulars were given to the House. They had no information as to whether there was or was not a surplus under the Imperial Defence Act. If they did not receive an adequate explanation they must record an emphatic protest against these items being withdrawn from control.
  Question put, "That the words 'ninety-six" stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided. Ayes, 191; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 43.)
  MR. KEARLEYmoved the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry, namely, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "Treasury," and to insert the words "House of Commons." The effect of the Amendment would be that before any moneys were issued the Secretary of State should submit an estimate to the

  955
  House of Commons. The Treasury were altogether unreliable in such matters. In the Barracks Act of 1890 there was a clause of which this was an exact counterpart—
  "The Secretary of State shall submit to the Treasury an estimate of any expenditure proposed."
  There was a large expenditure upon the Dublin Barracks. The House of Commons were given to understand that about £60,000 was to be spent on those barracks, but, notwithstanding that the Act provided that an estimate must be submitted, the work was proceeded with without an estimate. When the work was measured up the contractor claimed £150,000, and, after protesting, the Treasury paid that amount. He cited that as a justification for objecting to the Treasury having control of these estimates. The proper people to whom these estimates should be submitted were the Members of the House of Commons. It would be argued that that would be inconvenient, and that the Treasury were the proper body. But the Treasury had grossly neglected their duty.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If I correctly understand the proposal of the hon. Gentleman it is that an estimate should be laid before the House of Commons in order that the House of Commons should decide upon it. Such a proposal would be clearly out of order, because that would be contrary to what the House has already decided. If the hon. Member merely proposes that an estimate of the expenditure should be laid on the Table of the House, for the information of hon. Members, that, of course, would be in order.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that that, of course, was his proposal. [A laugh.] If an estimate of the expenditure was submitted to the House year by year, the House would be able to keep in touch with that expenditure, which for many reasons was most desirable. So far, no Amendment had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought he had given reasons why his own modest Amendment at least should be accepted. It only made the moderate demand that the Estimates should be submitted to the House instead of to the Treasury.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid he had already given an undertaking that what the hon.
  956
  Gentleman desired should be done. The Government proposed to give the Treasury control in the first instance. But they would lay before the House every Session a statement of the expenditure under the Act for the preceding year, and an Estimate of the amount required for the ensuing year, so that the House would have every year opportunity for discussing the expenditure under the Act. The hon. Gentleman was under a delusion in supposing that the original Estimate of £60,000 for alterations in the Royal Barracks, Dublin, was intended to cover the whole work. It was an estimate for only part of the work. For years the engineers had been baffled in their search for the source of the continual outbreaks of disease in the barracks; and it was only by removing the soil in all parts of the barracks and discovering cesspools of which there had been no previous knowledge that the evil had been got rid of. That, of course, was a work for which it would have been impossible to contract. The Public Accounts Committee would be able to comment upon it, and, therefore, having given that pledge he hoped the hon. Member would consider his Amendment unnecessary.
  *MR. WOODALLsaid he should vote with his hon. Friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite was hardly fair in raising an objection to the Amendment under consideration, by referring to another not before the Committee. Why was objection made to the return now proposed, and in a form approved by the Treasury? The Committee was already aware of the very large powers they were giving under the proposal of the Government. The power was given to divert money from works sanctioned to other works during the progress and expenditure over a long term of years. It was very important that the House of Commons should be constantly in touch with the expenditure of this money. Having conceded the principle he could not understand the refusal of the Government.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas very much surprised to hear that the hon. Member intended to support the Amendment. Really the Amendment did not carry out what the hon. Member who moved it desired. He did not understand that the hon. Member who had just sat down desired to get rid

  957
  of the Treasury control. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment as it stood was intended to provide that the expenditure should be submitted as an annual Vote to the House of Commons. That was a different matter altogether. If the hon. Member desired to retain Treasury control, he ought not to press this Amendment but submit another at the end of the sub-section providing that the matter should be submitted to the House of Commons. He asked for the Chairman's ruling on the point.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that was distinctly his view, but he felt that he could not stop the hon. Member.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had put down an Amendment which he understood had been accepted. What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? He said, because he objected to the next Amendment he could not accept the present one. He thought their contention was perfectly reasonable. The principle had been conceded, but the right hon. Gentleman had declined to give legal expression to it.
  MR. WARNERsaid that the Committee wanted to be in a position to know what the Government were doing. Under the Bill as it stood, there would be no control by the House, no power over what was spent, the objects on which it was spent, or the time that was occupied in its spending.
  Question put, "That the word 'Treasury' stand part of the clause."—The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 44.)
  MR. LOUGHmoved to omit Sub-section (3). He said that the sub-section was pure surplusage, and the Bill would be greatly improved if it were left out. The subsection dealt with excess of expenditure under any particular head of schedule, and said "There shall be no excess of expenditure under any particular head, unless." It was the word "unless" that he objected to. It invalidated the only useful provision the sub-section contained. The clause said:
  "Unless the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that there will be a saving."
  958
  It was a most problematical arrangement at the best. He thought that, the fact that there was a saving on one head should not sanction an expenditure of more than was required on another head. If something was saved in barracks it was no reason why another range should be built; and similarly, if, say, £500 was saved in defence works, why on earth should more than was required be spent on barracks? He thought that if any amount could be saved it should not be taken out of the Consolidated Fund at all.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid he found it rather difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman was quite serious in moving this Amendment. In large works of this kind it was impossible to be certain that the contract amount would not be exceeded in some way or other, or that works in the way of foundations or otherwise would not require to be made good; and if such expenses could be met by a judicious saving in some other of the works contemplated under the Bill, surely there was no reason why it should not.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."—The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 55.—(Division List, No. 45.)
  Clause 2:—

  BORROWING FOR PURPOSES OF ACT, AND ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.
  (1.) The Treasury may, if they think fit, at any time for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund under this Act, or the repayment to that fund of all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow money by means of terminable annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the passing of this Act as the Treasury may fix, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
  (2.) The said annuities shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for army services; and if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but shall not be payable as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  (3.) The Secretary of State shall in every financial year cause to be made out and laid before the House of Commons an account, in the form required by the Treasury, of the

  959
  money expended and borrowed and the securities created under this Act, and the accounts of expenditure under this Act shall be audited and reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General as appropriation accounts in manner directed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866.
  MR. LOUGHmoved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "may, if they think fit, at any time," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall." He desired to remove the indefinite character of the clause as it stood. The clause was drawn so that the Treasury need not borrow for the purposes of the Act unless they liked, but they did not know what the Treasury would do if they did not borrow. He feared that there would be some objectionable alternative savings. In his opinion the phraseology of the Bill could not be defended.
  *MR. BRODRICKopposed the Amendment, saying that the clause was drawn in the ordinary way.
  *MR. HARRISONsaid he maintained that the rationale of the Bill was based on the supposition that this was capital outlay for permanent works which ought not to be provided for out of revenue, but out of capital. It was stated during the Debate that the whole of these works were of a permanent nature, and the sole argument in favour of asking Parliament to part with its annual control of expenditure was simply because this outlay was provided for in a lump sum, and to be voted once and for all. No portion of this £5,000,000 was proposed or ought to be taken out of revenue. The whole ought to be raised by loan, and the Amendment gave effect to this proposal, and prevented any part being paid for out of revenue, and unless it was adopted there was nothing in the Bill, as at present drawn, which prevented the money from being taken entirely or largely out of revenue.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that he did not consider the explanation of the Under Secretary to be a satisfactory one. Either the money was to be raised by loan, or it was not; and the Committee wished
  960
  to know how the Government stood exactly with regard to the Measure. Did the Government propose to come to Parliament annually for sanction as to the unexpended portion of the money, or did they think it was inadvisable to come to Parliament for a ratification of the sums that were to be expended. This large sum contained in the Bill was to be spread over an indefinite period, and it appeared that Parliament should not be competent to revise the expenditure. If that was the position of the Government in the matter, surely the words of the suggested Amendment were more in keeping with the object which the Government had in view than the words in the Bill itself.
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (5th February) further adjourned till Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second reading deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY [19TH FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1897–8.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £553,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Extra Pay, Bounty, &c. (exclusive of Supplies, Clothing, &c.) of the Militia (to a number not exceeding 135,243, including 30,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £76,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Miscellaneous Charges of the Yeomanry Cavalry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."

961

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £627,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including Pay, &c. of the Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £639,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Transport and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
MR. FLYNNasked the Government if they could now say whether they would grant a return of the number of horses bought in Ireland last year as compared with the number in former years.
*MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he understood from what was said on Friday night that the hon. Gentleman wished the return to extend as far back as ten years. He was not yet in a position to say whether such a return could be furnished.
DR. TANNERasked how it came to pass that the Austrians bought Irish horses, and the English Government absolutely refused to do so? In the matter of the sale of horses he maintained that his country was wronged.
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,553,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, and other Sup plies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
MR. FLYNNsaid he desired to raise again the question of the supply of foreign meat supplied to the troops stationed in Ireland. The Financial Secretary to the War Office had stated in Committee that the maximum amount was 60 per cent. of foreign meat—it might be less, it could not be more—but he was informed that this did not accurately represent the facts. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, by informing the Committee that the War Office would make inquiries, an end had been put to the matter. The War Office had been postponing a fair answer to this very legitimate complaint for a long time, and they wished, before this Resolution was agreed to, for some full, satisfactory and,
962
if possible, final explanation from the Financial Secretary. He would remind the House that they could get good Irish beef and mutton at very low—certainly at very reasonable—prices; and it was not economy—it was false economy—to supply these hard, frozen junks of indifferent beef to the soldiers of their Army.
*MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid the hon. Member claimed that with regard to these purchases Ireland should have preferential treatment.
MR. FLYNNsaid Ireland wanted nothing of the kind. All they wanted was fair play.
*MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, with reference to the hon. Member's statement that the troops were fed with junks of frozen meat, that the meat supplied to the troops was subjected to the severest inspection. It was of first-rate quality, and no complaint whatever from the troops reached the War Office. The proportion of frozen refrigerated beef was 60 per cent. at the outside, and the proportion of frozen mutton was one-seventh of the whole supply. He had pointed out to the hon. Member in Committee that, as a matter of fact, the proportion of fresh meat actually supplied to the troops was higher than that laid down in the contracts. The Secretary of State had appointed two officers specialty to look into this matter in all its details, and to endeavour, if they could, to surmount the difficulties, which undoubtedly were great in certain directions, with a view to a further purchase of home produced meat becoming possible. He thought the hon. Member ought to be satisfied with that assurance. The hon. Member could find out for himself, by reference to any of the Army Service Corps authorities, that this matter was involved in the greatest difficulty, and that any premature dealing with it would result in a serious failure of the supply to the troops.
6. "That a sum not exceeding £1,016,400, 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 1898."
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £118,600, be 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 1898."
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,800, 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 1898."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 2nd March.
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

BENIN EXPEDITION.
On the Motion "That this House do now adjourn,"
SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the rumours in circulation, if the Government had any information in reference to the expedition to Benin?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes; I am glad to say news has been received of the successful issue of the expedition and with very little loss of life. The following is from Consul General Moore:—
"Advanced from Ologbo, 14th, in two columns, joining up on 16th. Benin City taken afternoon 18th. Distant 24 miles. Running fight entire route. Great difficulty with carriers getting up water. Considerable resistance taking city; entire force brought up; numbers, 540 men; casualties since my No. 8:—One naval sergeant, one chief petty officer, two Marines, one sergeant Protectorate force, one scout, one carrier killed; one Marine officer, one warrant officer, one petty officer, four Marines, one seaman, six force, eight carriers, three scouts, one interpreter severely wounded; three Marines, two seamen, two force slightly wounded. City now deserted. Neither king nor Juju men captured. A few natives of Phillips's party have come in from bush. Dreadfully mutilated human sacrifices met en route, and in city crucifixions and mutilations. Juju houses, compounds surrounding them, reek with human blood several deep holes in compounds filled with corpses. Effects of Europeans, Phillips's party, found in King's palaver house. Admiral proposes remaining few days assist establish Protectorate force here with necessary supplies. Immediate action taking (sic) capture king and Juju men and pacify country. Inhabitants inclined come in. All survivors well. No fever." [Cheers.]
Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

SINCLAIR'S DIVORCE.
Petition of Alfred Law Sinclair, of Holyhill, Strabane, County Tyrone, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Indian Staff Corps, for leave to present a Bill to dissolve his marriage with Isabella Sinclair, his wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes, was presented and read: Ordered that the said petition be taken into consideration on Friday next, and that notice thereof be given to the said Isabella Sinclair: Leave given to the Petitioner and to the said Isabella Sinclair to be heard by Counsel at the Bar upon the said petition: Copies of the proceedings in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in England, the Probate and Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and the Court of Appeal in Ireland, delivered (on oath).

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.