said, he should not have stood in the way of this Bill for a moment, but he found that no provision whatever had been made for the ventilation of the tunnels. He was surprised that any company or promoters should venture to come to that House and apply for powers to construct a new underground railway after the observations which had fallen at various times from the President of the Board of Trade, who as much as anyone realised that the tunnels of the underground railways were in a very bad condition. Of course, they all knew that promoters were bold men who would bring forward any scheme if they thought they could carry it through, so long as they got their handsome fees out of the public; but it was for this House to protect the health and the lives of the public. This company got an Act in 1893, and on page 8, sub-section 9, there was some reference to the ventilation, but the shafts mentioned in the sub-section were not ventilating shafts. They were simply stairs alongside the lifts, so that in the event of the lifts getting out of order the public would be able to use the stairs. There were no means of drawing out the foul air, and they must remember that these tunnels were from 60 to 80 feet down. No effectual provision was made for the foul air to be taken out of the tunnels. It might be said that as electric traction was to be used the ventilation would not be so objectionable as it was on the Underground Railway. He had been referred by the engineer of this proposed railway to the South London Railway as a model ventilated railway. He had travelled over that line, and considered it most unsatisfactory. He sought an independent opinion, and arranged with a well-known London expert in ventilation to examine and report. That gentleman did so last Saturday, and he would read a few extracts from that Report:—

"1. These tunnels—being so far below the surface, and in no way influenced, by difference of temperature—ought to be ventilated quite independently from the mere running of the trains, which only circulate the air throughout the tunnels without properly changing it, i.e., the atmosphere in the tunnels ought at all times to be positively changed, or changing, whether the trains be running or not.

"2. Though the most perfect plan of ventilating the tunnels would be the placing of a special shaft equidistant between each two stations, carrying it to the surface and above the roofs of the houses, and placing an electrically-driven fan of proper dimensions towards the upper part of it in each case, for the extraction of the vitiated air, allowing the fresh air free entry down through the stations; it is quite possible to give good ventilation on the same principle, by arranging to place on some of the special air shafts provided in the Act similar fans, say, a fan to be arranged in every other air shaft at every other station, allowing the air shafts remaining at the other stations to act as fresh air inlets.

"3. Although the visible impurities, such as smoke, steam, etc., existing, say, in the Underground Metropolitan Railways, are entirely wanting on these electrically-worked underground railways, the last-named have the disadvantage—from a ventilating point of view—of being about four times the depth under the surface that the Metropolitan Rail ways are, and, also, of not being at all appreciably benefited by difference of temperature and the action of the wind. A part from the nuisance caused by the products of combustion from the locomotives, the Metropolitan and District Underground Railways in London are entirely free from the musty and close smell which prevails in all parts of the South London Electric Railway, where the atmosphere can under existing circumstances, and under the most favourable conditions, be only completely changed at long intervals, and where the air is fouled by stale tobacco-smoke, and by the breaths, etc., of a vast number of people almost constantly passing through the stations and tunnels during the day. The two tunnels of the electric railways being again connected together at the stations, and by cross shafts at very frequent intervals between the stations, can only be looked upon as one system so far as the ventilation of the whole is concerned. It is imperative, therefore, that the vitiated and heavy air formed or left in even these electrically-worked railway tunnels should be constantly drawn off or extracted to the surface, as in mines, in order that fresh air should as constantly take its place. This can only, however, be satisfactorily accomplished by the proper use of positive and special appliances already indicated; most certainly the mere running of the trains through the tunnels at these great depths will never give anything like perfect ventilation, or the desired results.

"As regards the proposed Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, I can only say it would be a great improvement on the South London Electric Railway if this ventilation question was tackled properly, as it ought to be, and I feel that what I have stated has only to be pointed out to Mr. Greathead to be put right, when the ultimate results will redound more than ever to his credit. There is no reason either why the ventilation of the South London Railway should not be put right to the undoubted advantage of the passengers using it and the company, when it should then be the sweetest and most comfortable place to travel in in London at the present time.

"It should be noted the 'separate shafts for ventilation,' mentioned on page 8, Section 7, and in Clause 9 of the 1893 Act, should really be separate shafts for ventilation purposes solely, and should not be used as stairways."

If the Bill passed in its present form——

pointed out that this was practically only a Bill for the extension of time.

observed that there was a long list of other purposes over and above that relating to the extension of time. It was true that the Bill was passed in 1893, but no steps were then taken to deal with this question of underground ventilation. He had no desire to stand in the way of any railway being constructed in London, for the more that were made the better it would be as tending to relieve the congestion in the streets. If the promoters would agree to accept an Instruction requiring them to make proper provision for ventilation purposes, he should not on this occasion move the rejection of the Bill. He should place the Instruction on the Paper to-morrow or Thursday, and he hoped it would be accepted.

observed that it was really a great pity the time of the House was wasted in this way. This was simply a private Bill for an extension of time in regard to a railway. The Bill was passed in 1893 and was identical with the one now on the Paper, except that the latter provided for an extension of time with a slight additional length of line. In 1893 particular attention was paid to the very point to which the hon. Member had referred, and a special clause was inserted in the Bill to provide for its being properly carried out. ["Hear, hear!"] Inasmuch as that had been done, it seemed quite absurd to stop the Bill from immediately going to the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

I understand that my Amendment to the Belfast Bill is not in order, and it will be my duty when the Bill returns from the present Committee to move the insertion of the parliamentary franchise at that time.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether any attempt will be made by the Science and Art Department to improve the condition of the schools in Ireland with regard to the science teaching; and whether further efforts will be made to provide more lecture experiments and practical demonstrations for the purpose of illustrating science lectures in this Department in Ireland?

The Committee of Council constantly endeavour to improve the teaching of science in the science schools and classes throughout Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Every effort is made to induce committees of such schools in Ireland to avail themselves of the special grants for apparatus, which are only given in Ireland, and of the special grants for the practical laboratory work of students which are given throughout the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there has been any improvement in the condition of affairs in the Limply Stoke Reformatory, near Bath; whether the school results are still at the low level shown by the last triennial report; and, whether any further changes in the staff are being considered? THE HON. MEMBER further asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what are the proposed changes to be made in connection with the Bath Industrial School for Girls, 16, 17, and 18, Walcot Parade, Bath; and, whether the rooms are small and numerous, the premises old, difficult to keep clean, and the general condition of girls indifferent?

Notice was given last year by the managers of the Limply Stoke Reformatary School of their intention to resign the certificate of the school. The notice expires on the 31st instant, and the school will then be closed. All the inmates have now been disposed of but six. As regards the Bath Industrial School, it is true, I understand, that the rooms are small and numerous, and the premises old, but not in any special degree more difficult to keep clean than any private house situated in a similar position in Bath. The health of the girls is good at present, the improvement of late years in this respect being attributable to the fact that in the summer the girls are taken to the seaside for from four to six weeks. Their general condition appeared to the Inspector on his last visit to be good. The premises, nevertheless, are certainly not entirely satisfactory, and, at the instance of the Inspector, the managers have been and are endeavouring, I understand, to make arrangements which will enable them to move to premises more in accordance with modern requirements. Meanwhile the health of the school and of the staff is being carefully watched.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War can he state the number of Englishmen, Irish, Welsh, and Scottish respectively recruited in 1892 and 1895; and why the table given in respect of the nationalities in the Annual Report only applies to Militia recruits?

Recruits are not classified according to nationalities, but according to the districts in which recruited. Classification by nationality takes place after the men have joined their regiments, and is shown for both Regulars and Militia in the General Annual Return of the Army (Tables 65 and 92).

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how many recruits have been obtained in the Highlands and Islands during the current financial year, the names of the counties in which recruiting was carried on, and the number of recruits secured in each county?

I presume that the hon. Member wishes to know the number of recruits raised in the districts which were included in the expenditure I gave him on Thursday last. In the 10 months ending on the 31st of January, 711 recruits were raised for the Regular Army and 1,115 for the Militia. They are not stated by counties in the Returns rendered to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been drawn to a petition from the Moray Firth Fisheries Association, setting forth that the main causes of the failure to enforce respect for the bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland are that the gunboats placed on the service have not had sufficient speed for the capture of offending trawlers; that the commanders of the gunboats have had little interest in the pursuit of trawlers, and that, in consequence, there has in general been a great lack of zeal in the work; that the class of vessels employed in the service have been too readily distinguishable at a distance, and have thus been unable to get near enough to the offenders for their capture; and, whether steps will be taken at an early date to render the protection of the line-fishermen more efficient?

The petition referred to has been received. I must not be taken as admitting the accuracy of any of the statements quoted from it; and, in particular, the statement as to lack of interest and zeal in the work has, so far as I can discover, no foundation. For the rest, I would refer to my answer given to the hon. Member for Banffshire on Thursday last.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Scottish Fishery Board's cruiser New Vigilant, a second-hand yacht named the Violet, is reported by the Board as not strong enough, although she has been strengthened, to withstand the heavy seas sometimes encountered outside the Islands, and that she is therefore hardly equal to the task of discharging the police duties of the Board in all states of the weather; and, whether seeing that the New Vigilant is totally unfit to perform the duties of protecting the line fishermen from the ravages of trawlers around the Western Isles, and that she has been relegated to the calmer waters of the Firth of Clyde, will steps be taken to provide the Fishery Board with a faster and more powerful cruiser?

The Fishery Board have had no reason to complain of the unseaworthiness of the fishery cruiser Vigilant since she was strengthened, nor have they received any complaint of illegal trawling from the Western Isles for some time. When such complaints were received last autumn and winter a gunboat was specially detailed to investigate and report, and this arrangement appears for the present to be sufficient to meet the case.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the original plans for Balintore Harbour were departed from by Messrs. Stevenson, the Government engineers; and, whether he is aware that this change has rendered the harbour dangerous to fishing boats?

The design of Balintore Harbour, prepared by the Messrs. Stevenson, the Trustees' engineers, was not departed from, and the harbour was completed to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade and the Trustees.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) if he will state what sum was provided by the Government towards the construction of Broadford Pier, Isle of Skye; (2) whether he is aware that the income from pier dues (passengers and goods) amounted last year to £450; and, (3) whether he can state what becomes of this income, and to whom accounts are rendered?

The sum provided was £7,875. In reply to the last two paragraphs I have no doubt the amount of income last year will appear in the accounts, which by Section 41 of the Provisional Order relating to this pier, are supplied to the Sheriff-Clerk of the county, and also to the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, having regard to the fact that Crown officials at Lochmaddy, North Uist, are wholly dependent upon the owner of the island for residence, that the Sheriff has been under notice of eviction and the Procurator Fiscal has already been evicted, will he state the conditions on which the gaol and court house are held from the same landlord?

There is no gaol at Lochmaddy. There are legalised prison cells which, with the court house, are built on land acquired by the Commissioners of Supply and held under a feu disposition for a yearly payment of £2. If the hon. Member desires to know what the other conditions are, I must refer him to the parties to the contract.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that since 1882 schoolmasters in the local prisons have been taken from the ranks of the warders, and that, though engaged since then as school teachers, these men are still subject to the usual warders' hours of duty, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., instead of from 9 a.m. till 5 p.m., the hours usually served by teachers and clerks: and, whether he will give instructions to have their hours regulated more strictly in accordance with their duties?

I am fully aware of the position of the schoolmaster warders to whom the hon. Member refers. The question of their hours of duty was among those into which inquiry was made by Lord de Ramsey's Committee in 1891, who reported to the Secretary of State, that the "evidence did not support the demand for alteration in the terms of service." In view, however, of the nature of the duties which are, or may be, entrusted to them, the Prison Commissioners are now considering whether it would be possible to allow some slight modification of the hours of duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to Treasury-Minute of 14th March 1894, on the subject of the appointment of retired soldiers and sailors as messengers, what results have been obtained as a consequence of the experiments proposed in that Minute to appoint a certain number of those classes to act as temporary messengers in the Treasury and in the Departments subordinate to the Treasury?

Since the date of the Minute referred to, the Treasury have appointed four retired soldiers and sailors to messengerships, or posts of a similar character, and they are just appointing 12 more to be curators and messengers in the new National Portrait Gallery. The Treasury have, so far, no reason to doubt the general success of the arrangements made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the total amount paid in the last financial year by the Government of Great Britain and Ireland for printing, binding, lithographing, and stationery, including printing of postage and other stamps?

If my hon. Friend will refer to page 189 of the Appropriation Accounts, just issued, he will see that the total expenditure of the Stationery Office during the last financial year upon printing, binding, stationery, and incidental services was £445,447. This does not include the cost of salaries, police, paper for public Departments, and grants of Parliamentary Papers for free libraries, which amounted to £181,176 more. The cost of printing postage and other stamps amounted to £124, 143. Besides these amounts, the Foreign Office have a printer at £150 a-year and a printer's reader at £104, 1he Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have a grant of about £30,000 a-year for paper, printing and binding of school books, and purchasing other school requisites, and various other departments spend small sums on their own account upon binding and sewing; but I think my hon. Friend will find the figures I have mentioned sufficient for all practical purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Government Printing Office of Sydney, New South Wales, performs all Government work for that colony, including printing, binding, lithographing of maps and plans, printing of postage stamps and railway tickets, printing Hansard, &c., to the satisfaction of all concerned; and that there is a similar Government Printing Office in Washington; and whether any other Government in the world beside our own has its printing done by contract, or is without a Government printing office?

also asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether it would be advisable to establish a Government Printing Office?

I am afraid I have no information as to Sydney, and the Stationery Office is not aware whether England stands alone in doing its printing through contractors. As regards Washington, I am told that the American Government printing costs a great deal more, book for book, than the British Government printing, and that the American Public Printer, in his report on the year ending June 30, 1894, felt it necessary to apologise for "frequent complaints from the various departments of the Government regarding delayed work." I must point out to my hon. Friend that, if the House had desired an Inquiry to be held as to whether it would be advisable to establish a Government Printing Office, it would probably have included the subject in the reference to the Committee now sitting. My hon. Friend's attitude towards the Post Office has certainly given me the impression that, in his opinion at least, work is better done in private establishments than in public.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the extremely unsatisfactory sanitary surroundings at Shoeburyness will be remedied; whether the village sewer, the general, sanitary conditions of the foreshore and neighbouring villages are a continual menace to the health of the troops; and what will be done to remedy this often complained of state of affairs?

The insanitary condition of the foreshores and of the villages in the neighbourhood of the School of Gunnery, has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the Local Authorities. There is reason to believe that the Urban District Council is moving in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to introduce a Sea Fisheries Bill; and, if so, when, and in which House?

I have carefully considered the representations made for and against a Sea Fisheries Bill, and have come to the conclusion that the case for legislation of a kind similar to that projected last year is very strong. Under these circumstances I propose to ask Parliament to consider the subject, but at present am not in a position to say when, and in which House, a Bill will be introduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how much money has been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the County of Donegal up to the present, distinguishing the amount spent in each barony?

The accounts of the Congested Districts Board will be closed on the 31st instant, the end of the current financial year, and it would cause great inconvenience to ascertain the expenditure of the Board in respect of a period ending on a date prior to the 31st instant. In any event, it would be quite impossible to give the Board's expenditure by baronies, and in regard to such expenditure as has been incurred on general schemes or projects, it would be equally impracticable to apportion payments either according to baronies or counties. If, however, the hon. Member desires to have information regarding the number, nature, locality and cost of public works constructed, or in process of construction by the Board, I shall not object to a Return in continuation of that supplied on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry in 1893, No. 417 of that Session, which gave similar information up to that date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any definite and satisfactory settlement has been arrived at as to the payment by the Treasury, out of the moneys provided by Parliament, of the salaries and remuneration of the officers of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland), and the administrative expenses of the Board?

I would refer the hon. Member to page 493 of the Estimates for the coming financial year, which have been laid before the House, from which he will observe that the sum of £3,694 has been provided for the salaries of the official staff of the Congested Districts Board; in addition to which there is a provision for a grant in aid of certain expenditure for salaries and traveling expenses, chargeable on the Board's funds, amounting to £1,000, and a further sum of £1,250 for the travelling expenses of the Commissioners, postage, etc.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it has been brought to his notice that, last Saturday, on board the training ship Worcester, at Greenhithe, some 40 boys (out of about 160) suffering from mumps, instead of being isolated, were taking their share of sweeping decks; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this neglect of ordinary sanitary laws?

Although the Board of Trade have no authority in the matter, I have made inquiry into the circumstances referred to in the Question. The Port Sanitary Authority of London have certain statutory powers as regards certain dangerous infectious diseases, but mumps is not one of these diseases. I am assured on behalf of the managers of the Worcester that the Cadets on board are under careful medical supervision; that cases of mumps are at once isolated and, if necessary, sent to the hospital ship; and that boys affected are not allowed to mix with the others in sweeping decks or in any other way.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is there, to the knowledge, officially or unofficially, of Her Majesty's Government, foundations for the statement of the special correspondent of The Times, that the United States Government has expressed its willingness to either accept or propose a Scheme for a Joint Commission to consider and report upon the Venezuelan dispute?

We have received official proposals from the United States Government which are now the subject of negotiation; they would not be accurately described by the language of the hon. Member. A very wise rule has hitherto prevailed, that negotiations should not be discussed in Parliament while they are going on. I am unable to depart from it in the present instance.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been directed to the statement in the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland that, in the interest of the fishing industry in Scotland, it is of urgent necessity that the Legislature should take immediate action with a view to provide, if possible, an adequate supply of mussels being cultivated in Scotch waters; and, if he will state whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken in the matter?

I can find no such statement as is quoted in the Question in the last Report of the Fishery Board; but I may remind the hon. Member that legislation dealing with Mussel Culture was passed last year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that in the Island of Lewis there are 3,160 persons qualified to vote at County Council Elections, and that of this number 3,060 are disqualified to vote at School Board Elections; and, whether he is now prepared to take any steps to place the School Board electorate on a more satisfactory footing?

The information furnished to me does not agree with the statements in the Question of the hon. Member. Deducting those disqualified by non-payment of county rates, there are, according to the register for the current year, not 3,160 but 1,515 persons disqualified to vote at County Council Elections in the Island of Lewis. According to the Valuation Roll for the same year there were, instead of 100 persons, 1,097 persons entitled to vote at School Board Elections in the Island. As I have before said in answer to the hon. Member, a change in the educational franchise can only be made by a general enactment, and I cannot pledge the Government to introduce such a Measure.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has satisfied himself as to the sanity of a prisoner named Devany, at present confined in Portland in connection with the dynamite conspiracy; and, whether, seeing that this man is now 70 years of age, that the evidence in his case went to show that his part in the conspiracy was of a subordinate character, and that he has already been in prison about 13 years, he will reconsider his case?

As I recently informed the House, Devany was specially examined in December last with the other treason-felony convicts by two specialists, and I was satisfied by their report that Devany was not of unsound mind. I stated at the same time, so far as the merits of the case were concerned, the principles upon which the Government were prepared to treat it. I may add that Devany has served 12 years and not 13, and that according to the information in my possession his age is 55 and not 70.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether Sir J. Westland, the Finance Minister of India, has accepted as correct the estimate of the Bombay Millowners' Association that the recent modification of the Cotton Duties involves an increase of the Excise levied in India from seven to eighteen lakhs of rupees?

Sir James Westland is reported to have said, in the Debate of the 3rd of February, that he accepted these figures for present purposes, but that they in no way affected the principle of the Bill under discussion, viz., that of absolute equality of treatment. The report of this Debate, together with other papers on the same subject, will shortly be ready for distribution.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether he is aware that property belonging to British subjects has been destroyed and plundered during the recent disturbances at Trebizond and elsewhere in Armenia; and, (2) whether the Government will present to the Turkish Government any properly authenticated claims for compensation for the loss of such property?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the fact mentioned in the last paragraph of the Question. Her Majesty's Government will undertake to present well-authenticated claims by British subjects on account of losses for which the Turkish Government can properly be held liable.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the very generally expressed feeling against the power at present possessed by a single elector of demanding a poll at a parish meeting; and whether he will take steps to alter or curtail this power?

I presume that the Question of my hon. Friend is intended to apply to the demand for a poll by one parochial elector with reference to the election of parish councillors. If so, I can only say, as was stated in reply to a previous Question, that, if it should be found from the representations received that there are substantial grounds for an alteration in this respect, the question will be further considered before any general order is issued as regards future elections, and the Government will take such steps as may appear to be necessary. With regard to matters respecting which it is expressly provided by the Local Government Act of 1894 that one parochial elector shall have the right to demand a poll, no alteration can be made without legislation, and I am not prepared at present to give any undertaking as to proposing legislation on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any communication from the Board of Irish Lights Commissioners regarding the beacon on the North Briggs Reef; and whether it is their intention to put up a new beacon in the place of the one which has been washed away?

The Commissioners of Irish Lights have informed me that representations have been already made to them by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Belfast Chamber of Commerce as to the desirability of re-erecting the beacon on the North Briggs Reef; but that, looking to the fact that the beacon was originally erected by private enterprise, and for local purposes, they do not consider that they would be justified in proposing that the expense of the replacement of the beacon should be thrown on the Mercantile Marine Fund.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by whom it is likely to be erected?

The Board of Trade have no power to compel the Irish Lights Commissioners to do anything in the matter. Their power is entirely confined to meeting the expenses which the Irish Light Commissioners think it right with the sanction of the Board of Trade to undertake. But the Board of Trade have no power to compel them to do anything which they do not think it their duty to do. They think this is a local matter, and that the beacon ought to be restored by the local authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners are not allowed by Act of Parliament——

Order, order! That is travelling beyond the Question.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, with reference to the sum of £2,000 voted last year for the purpose of building a fort on Barry Island, whether the Government have abandoned their intention of undertaking the work?

The work will be proceeded with at Barry as soon as the transfer of certain additional land required for the site has been completed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to a Bill to amend The Excise Act, 1881, which has been introduced into the Legislative Council of India by Sir James Westland, purporting to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission, appointed in consequence of a Motion of this House; whether he is aware that this Bill proposes to grant the power to license hemp drugs in Burmah, where it has hitherto been, prohibited; that Sir James Westland, in his speech introducing the Bill, stated that the Government did not propose, even if these powers were enacted, to make any alteration in the system of administration of hemp drugs in that province; that the Commissioners unanimously reported that there ought to be a five tola maximum limit of possession of the drug all over India, and that this provision is not included in the Bill; and, whether he will examine this Bill in connection with the Report and recommendations of the Commission?

The Bill to amend the Excise Act, 1881, introduced into the Legislative Council of India by Sir James Westland, was introduced to give effect to the restrictive suggestions of the Hemp Drugs Commission, and that object will be kept in view. As regards Burmah, the existing law gives power as to granting licences for the growth, preparation, and possession of ganja, which are not now exercised. The amending Bill introduces no change in this respect, and it is not proposed to make any use at present of these powers. As regards the rest of India, I am advised that this Bill does not alter the existing law, under which five tolas is fixed as the limit for the retail sale of ganja; and it renews the provision that no unlicensed person may have in his possession more than that quantity of the drug.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he has received an application from Patrick Bryan, of Smithborough, county Monaghan, for a small increase of pension; and, considering that Bryan served in the 46th Regiment in the Crimea and gained a medal and clasp, and also served in India during the Mutiny, altogether for 18 years on foreign service, and that he is now over 60 years of age, and unable, owing to a recent serious accident, to perform any labour to assist him in supporting himself and his wife, whether the War Office authorities can see their way to accede to his request for an increase of pension?

Patrick Bryan was awarded the pension authorised by the regulation for his service at the time of his discharge from the Army, and there is no regulation which enables pensions to be revised on grounds unconnected with military service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Lord Lieutenant has refused to give his final approval to the scheme for dealing with the Roxborough Road School, Limerick, as amended by Resolution of this House; did Canon Gregg take possession of these premises in 1874, without the sanction of the Commissioners of Education, and hold them till 1880, without having ever paid rent; was Canon Gregg, in 1880, accepted as tenant by the Commissioners of Education at a rent of £20 a year, but did the Judicial Commissioners, under the Educational Endowments Act, find that the Commissioners of Education expended the amount of the yearly rent upon repairs and maintenance, or gave credit for same to Canon Gregg against expenditure by him upon such repairs and maintenance; has the result been that Canon Gregg, holding these premises practically free of rent from 1874 to 1892, lias not been required even to keep them in repair, and did the architect to the Commissioners, in 1894, report that the premises are in a state of dilapidation; and, under what Act are the duties and rights of the Commissioners of Education in regard to these premises denned, and what Statute empowers them to let these premises to Canon Gregg?

As the hon. Gentleman is already aware, from the correspondence between the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick and myself, which has been published in the Press, and which, doubtless, he has read, the Lord Lieutenant has withheld his approval of the Scheme dealing with the Roxborough Road School, having regard to the statement made by the Judicial Commissioners, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and Mr Justice O'Brien (upon which I do not desire to offer an opinion), that an approval of the Scheme, with the omission of Dr. Gregg's right of preemption and no right of compensation, might work a possible injustice. The hon. Gentleman must be further aware, from that correspondence, that, with a view to having the right to compensation finally decided, the Judicial Commissioners published, on the 28th January last, a Supplemental Scheme, dealing with the Roxborough Road School, to which all parties interested have a right to lodge objections and to have those objections adjudicated upon at a public hearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case being thus sub judice, I do not think it advisable to now anticipate the discussion that may hereafter take place of the matters involved in the Question on the Paper.

I have asked only as to matters of fact.

These matters of fact have to come up for discussion before the Privy Council.

Are the statements in the Question true or false?

I cannot give any other answer to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether persons following the trade of money lenders have to take out any licence; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making it illegal for any person to ply the trade of a money lender, by sending out circulars, or letters, or any other form of advertisement, unless he is duly licensed so to do?

No licence is necessary to enable a person to follow the trade of a money lender. I would point out that the term "money lender" covers a large class of persons, including bankers, and I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion made in the Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can corroborate the reports from Asia Minor that great numbers of forced conversions to Mohammedanism from Christianity are still being made, and the rite of circumcision cruelly administered to men and boys; that the wives of these converts are forcibly taken from them and given to Turks: that the Armenian church in Urfa has been burned down when 2,000 people were inside, of whom not more than 100 escaped, who were killed by the sword; and that systematic-debauchery of defenceless Christian women is carried on by Turks in nearly all the devastated districts with impunity; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made by our Consuls in Asia Minor as to the accuracy of these statements?

The reports received tend to confirm the general, though not the precise accuracy of the statements made in the Question. Her Britannic Majesty's Consuls already have instructions to inquire into and report upon these matters, and representations are in consequence being constantly made at Constantinople.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the route of postman Patrick Sinnott, who is attached to the Aughrim, county Wicklow, office, has been increased to fourteen miles or more; and, if the increased route entitles him to the rank and pay of an established instead of an auxiliary postman; and, if so, will he recommend Sinnott to the rank and pay to which his increased labour entitles him?

The walk of postman Sinnott has recently been increased, but increased by less than a quarter of a mile; the total distance now walked by him is believed to be still under 13 miles. As the man's work extends over a short period, and is completed before 11 a.m., he is not entitled to the rank and pay of an established postman. I shall always be glad to give information privately on small points of detail like this, and I hope the hon. Member will think that is perhaps the more convenient course.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that six cadetships being annually offered for competition to the best lads on the Conway and the Worcester, is a valuable incentive to the youths who are trained on those ships, and in view of the increasing requirements of the Navy, whether he will reconsider the proposed reduction in the number of naval cadetships to be given in future years to the Conway and the Worcester?

said, it was never intended to continue to offer so large a number of cadetships (six) to the Conway and Worcester, nor had the experiment been particularly successful, judged by the examinations of the young men who presented themselves for cadetships. It would not be fair, as a permanent arrangement, to admit into the Navy many young officers on much less stringent terms as to examination than those imposed upon the cadets trained in the Britannia.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government authorised or directed the Irish Board of Works to prepare plans to build a pier at Killybegs Harbour; and, if so, when do they intend this work to be done; and, what amount do they propose to expend to make the harbour suitable for the use of vessels that may use that harbour either to land or embark material of any sort, the present harbour being only about 100 feet long, and dry at low water, which renders it unfit for such a purpose?

Plans of the proposed pier at Killybegs have been prepared. The Treasury have agreed to make a grant of £6,600 towards the construction of the pier, provision for which is made in the Estimates for the coming year, and the Congested Districts Board have agreed to supplement this grant by a contribution of £3,400 making a total of £10,000. The object of the pier is not only to benefit the fishing industry, but to afford accommodation for steamers and coasting vessels. It is hoped that the work of constructing the pier will be commenced at an early date.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why an exception has been made with respect to this harbour whilst the Board of Works has intimated to all other applicants that they have no money whatever in their possession for these purposes?

Nor have they, except in so far as they may obtain money from Parliament. We consider that Killybegs Harbour takes precedence of any other in point of requirement.

May I ask whether it is intended to obtain funds by a grant from Parliament generally with a view to the building of piers?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a charge of neglect of duty has been made to the Local Government Board against the medical officer of the Mitchelstown dispensary district of the County of Cork, for not attending and treating a dangerous case of extensive and deep burns admitted recently to the Mitchelstown Workhouse; whether he is aware that an inquiry has been demanded by a responsible officer of the Mitchelstown Union who made the charge; and, have any of the statements contained in it been refuted or denied; and, if not, will he take steps to hold a sworn inquiry?

I wish to know whether the responsible officer of Mitchelstown Union, Dr. Walsh, who makes this charge against a brother medical practitioner, is the defendant in an action for libel at the suit of this gentleman, Dr. O'Brien. I also wish to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the charge made against his brother practitioner, with reference to a patient who was admitted to Mitchelstown Workhouse on the 14th of December, was not brought under the notice of the Local Government Board until the middle of January; also whether the Local Government Board have not been satisfied as to the explanation given, and whether the Mitchelstown Board of Guardians, at a meeting held on March 5th, have not expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the explanation of Dr. O'Brien?

I have no information as to the first part of the supplementary Question. The other parts of the Question are, I think, answered in the reply to the other Question on the Paper. It is true that a charge of the nature indicated was recently preferred against the medical officer of the Mitchelstown dispensary district by an officer occupying a responsible position in the Union. The communication containing this charge was forwarded to the dispensary doctor for his explanatory observations, and these observations were under the consideration of the Board of Guardians at their meeting held on the 5th inst., when they expressed themselves quite satisfied that no blame attached to the doctor in the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, Mr. J. O'KELLY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Board of Works have yet commenced the promised drainage works on the River Shannon, near Battle Bridge; if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when it is likely the project will be proceeded with?

The works have not yet been commenced, but all possible preparations are being made to start at an early date. The Board of Works have only recently been able to acquire the necessary land and water rights, and on the completion of the vendor's title they will be able to proceed. The difficulty of acquiring these rights at a fair price, the Board having no compulsory powers, is the reason why works were not started before this, but this difficulty has now been overcome.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Walsall, Mr. SYDNEY GEDGE, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what annual sums are received by H. R. H. the Duke of Cambridge by way of pay, pension, or otherwise, either from the Consolidated Fund or by a Vote of this House?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the total annual amount H. R. H. the Duke of Cambridge was in receipt of at the time of his resignation, as Commander-in-Chief, as Field Marshal, as Colonel of the Guards, and from any other public sources; and, for how many years has H. R. H. received remuneration for these posts respectively?

In reply to the hon. Member, and also to the Question addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy district, I have to say that when His Royal Highness was Commander-in-Chief he drew £6,631 14s. 2d. for pay and forage allowance, including his pay as a Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, to which post he was appointed in 1861. Since his retirement his Royal Highness has only received from Army funds the £2,200 due to him in respect of his colonelcy. The Duke receives from the Consolidated Fund the annuity of £12,000 granted to him under the Act 13 and 14 Viet. cap. 77, and £109 10s. a year as Ranger of Richmond Park from Civil Estimates.

May I ask whether we are to understand that this proposal represents the whole or only a portion of the Government scheme for old age pensions? ["Oh, oh!"]

May I ask whether the £6,600 pay to His Royal Highness as Field-Marshal was in addition to the £2,200 salary as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards?

No, Sir; my hon, and gallant Friend might have gathered from the answer I gave that the £6,631 was the whole of his emolument in any capacity from Army funds while Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of electors in North Galway exceeds by 325 the number of inhabited houses in the constituency according to the last census, while there are only 15 freeholders and leaseholders and rent-chargers on the register; (2) whether he will inquire as to the causes of the extraordinary increase of the electors from the poor law and county officials responsible for the production of the lists; (3) whether any Irish constituency exhibits a corresponding increase in its electorate; and (4) whether, seeing that the addition of nearly 3,000 names from 1891 to 1895 adds to the amount of the candidate's security to the sheriff at a Parliamentary election from £400 to £700, strict inquiry will be made as to what officials are responsible for this addition to the electoral strength of the constituency in a county in which the population has been steadily decreasing in recent years?

It appears from a Parliamentary Return recently issued that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The persons responsible for the preparation of the Voters Lists are the Clerks of Unions and the Clerk of the Peace. The latter official cannot state to what the increase of electors in the constituency is due. The Clerk of one of the Unions comprised in the constituency states that, prior to 1891 there was no interest taken by the people to have their votes registered, and that they did not return the Requisition Form served upon them, but that, after the Election of 1892, a considerable number of claims were made, and in some instances there were two and three names returned from one house. But whatever may be the reasons for the increase in North Galway or elsewhere, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the preparation of these Lists of Voters, or Parliamentary Registers, the Government exercises no jurisdiction and is in no way responsible, nor has the Local Government Board any jurisdiction over Clerks of Unions in the discharge of their duties under the Franchise Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if, having regard to the utilisation of the free markets of the United Kingdom by the Governors of German and Belgian prisons, for the sale of goods manufactured by the forced labour of foreign convicts and felons, which they are forbidden to sell in their own districts, he will instruct the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Birmingham, and other Governors desirous of causing their prisoners to manufacture paper bags and other articles, that they should sell their prison goods in Germany, Belgium, the United States, and other foreign lands, bearing in mind the provisions of the Statute, 40 and 41 Vic., c. 21, s. 11?

I cannot admit that the construction which my hon. Friend appears to place upon Section 11 of the Prison Act is a correct one, or that the facts as to the importation of prison-made goods are as he suggests in the first part of the Question. I can assure him, however, that I shall take every care that the section in question is administered in accordance with the promises made by the Government of the day when it was under Debate, namely, that prison labour should be spread over as many kinds of employment as possible, and that, with due regard to local and other circumstances, there should be as little competition or interference as could be with any trade throughout the country.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can now state when the correspondence with Foreign Governments in regard to the importation of prison-made goods will be issued; and, what is the cause of the delay?

It is not considered desirable to present the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member until it is complete. Endeavours are being made to obtain early answers from those Powers which have not yet replied, and on receiving these the question of presenting will be at once dealt with.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, will he state what portion of the provisions supplied to the troops during the Ashanti Expedition came from Germany, and how much money went to Foreign in place of to British contractors on that account; and, whether it would have been possible to have obtained the same provisions in this country?

About five tons of dried vegetables, of a description and quality not procurable in the United Kingdom, as has already been stated in this House, were obtained from Germany for the Ashanti Expedition. The value was below £500; but it is not usual to disclose contract prices.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, when our troops entered Kumasi, permission was given to them to pillage the palace and the treasure house; and, if this pillage did take place, whether he can state where the spoils thus taken are at present placed, and what is their ultimate destination?

Permission was not given for any pillaging at Kumasi. On the contrary, it was strictly prohibited in general orders, and any case which came to notice was summarily dealt with by the Provost-Marshal. The articles found in the King's house were of little importance or value, and were sold by auction in Kumasi for, £150 16s. 9d. The treasure had been mostly removed by the Ashantis except 680oz. of gold.

Were there any cases of Court-martial?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that.

By whom were those articles sold for the Government?

I think that question must be addressed to the Colonial Secretary.

Is it true that Prempeh's crown is at the Colonial Office, under the control of the Colonial Secretary? [ Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether, considering the present very low price of British oats and the admitted fact that they are superior in quality to those imported from Russia, he will give preference to home-grown products?

I can only repeat that the whole question of the supply of forage to the Army is under the consideration of the Secretary of State; and that there is every desire to give preference to home-grown produce as long as such a course is consistent with economy. Regard will certainly be had to the quality as well as the cost of the forage purchased.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that the auditor of the Irish Local Government Board has surcharged upon the Guardians of the Monaghan Union a sum of £10 paid by them to a sanitary officer who had become unfit for further duty after a service extending over 30 years; (2) whether he is aware that the board was entirely unanimous in voting this sum to their officer, who had reached the extreme old age of 92 years, arid was in a state bordering on destitution, and that no objection was raised by any ratepayer to the payment of the amount; and (3), will he, in these circumstances, instruct the Local Government Board to authorise their auditor to withdraw the surcharge, and permit the sum to be levied on the rates in the ordinary way?

The facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph. The Board of Guardians were unanimous in wishing to grant a superannuation allowance to this man upon his retiring, in the early part of last year, from the office in question, but the Local Government Board explained to them that there was no legal enactment enabling the Guardians to make a payment of this nature, and that if made it would be liable to be disallowed by the auditor. The Local Government Board have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the auditor in reference to any cases of surcharge made by him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will take steps to enable Justices, acting by virtue of their office as Chairmen of Local Boards or Vestries, to sit on General Committees of Justices, by causing the several Committees to be elected in May instead of January as at present?

I can only say at present that legislation would be necessary before the dates of electing all the Committees could be changed, and that I am at present in communication with the London Quarter Sessions on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Land Bill will be introduced before Easter; and, if so, when it may be expected?

I am still in the position of not being able to answer the hon. Gentleman, but I may say that this is a question that should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury and not to me.

Has the right hon. Gentleman, no control for Ireland over the time of this House?

In view of the great anxiety felt about this Bill and the inconvenience caused to Irish Members, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could state now about what time it will be introduced?

As soon as I am in a position to make an announcement I will not delay in making it.

If the right hon. Gentleman were to introduce the Bill without any preliminary statement, should we have the Bill immediately; or is it that the Bill is not yet ready?

If I have a general representation from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would like to have this Bill without any preliminary statement, I would be glad to let them have it. [Cries of "No, no!"]

I do not think it would be at all desirable to have the Bill introduced without a preliminary statement. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is now able to make any statement as to the re-building of Winchester Barracks?

The re-building of Winchester Barracks will be proceeded with as soon as the arrangements with the County Council for the exchange of certain land at Winchester, which are now in a forward state, are completed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that in some Irish Lunatic Asylum Boards there are gentlemen representing contributory counties in which they have neither property, residence, or interest, to the exclusion of residents of such contributory areas; and, will he take steps at next annual selection of Lunatic Asylums Boards in Ireland to cause the removal of such persons?

I am not aware that there are cases of the nature alleged in the Question. But if the hon. Member will write to me, furnishing the names he refers to, I shall look into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Belfast Teachers' Association, on the 2nd November last, in which they complain of the severity of the strain caused year by year in the Belfast group of districts by reason of the results system, and that the strain on both teachers and pupils is at the breaking point; (2) was a copy of this resolution sent to the head inspector, Mr. Stronge, and what action, if any, has been taken in the matter; (3) is he aware that the Belfast Teachers' Association sent a letter to Mr. Stronge, on the 7th December last, stating that if a Return were called for of the percentages of failures and No. 2 passes in the districts for the last five years, it would be found that they had increased every year, and in 1894 most of all; and (4) did Mr. Stronge forward this letter to the Commissioners, and, if so, will he state with what result?

The Commissioners of National Education, have no information as to the matters referred to in the second and third paragraphs, and their reply to the fourth paragraph is in the negative. The Commissioners have, however, received the resolution mentioned in the first paragraph, and the general subject with which it deals has been under their consideration, and will be the subject of special inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, the recent Correspondence of the Canadian Government, and his reply with regard to the alleged existence of contagious pleuro-pneumonia in Canada?

stated that the Board of Agriculture were prepared at once to publish the further correspondence, and to lay it upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it has been brought to his notice that the financial report of the Zanzibar Government for the past year shows increased receipts and that every department of the Government has a large surplus available; and, when the Government propose to state their policy with regard to the continued existence of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba?

I have seen a statement in the newspapers to the effect described by the hon. Member, but the Financial Report from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar has not reached us. I hope to make a statement upon the intentions of the Government in Committee of Supply.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that a large section of public servants under the Education Department, hitherto known as inspectors' assistants of schools, have recently been styled sub-inspectors, and called upon to perform more responsible and onerous duties, and that their salaries have remained at the same scale as when they were only inspectors' assistants; and, if so, do the authorities contemplate any revision of the scale of payment?

I am aware that the gentlemen hitherto known as inspectors' assistants of schools have recently been styled sub-inspectors. But neither their salaries nor their duties have been changed, only their names.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the statement in the Army Medical Report, just issued, that outbreaks of enteric fever during the year at the barracks at Caterham and Parkhurst, Isle of Wight, are attributable to pollution of the drinking water, he will consider the advisability of having the water in use at the various barracks analysed at fixed intervals?

There are strict regulations for the analysis of water supplied to barracks whenever there is any reason to suppose it may be injurious to health. The water supplied to Park-hurst Barracks in the early part of 1894 was cut off in October of that year and good water laid on; and at Caterham the same measures were adopted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, is he aware that, the new President of the Irish Board of Works, who was previously manager of the Irish Great Northern Railway, is announced as a witness against the Central Ireland Railway Bill recently passed by this House, and now before the Lords Committee; whether this announcement was made before Mr. Robertson left the Great Northern Company; and if the consent of the Treasury had been asked to his appearance as a witness against the Central Ireland Railway Bill?

I have no knowledge whether Mr. Robertson's name is announced as a witness against the Central Ireland Railway Bill, and I have not had sufficient time to communicate with him on the subject. Mr. Robertson has, I understand, not yet left the service of the Great Northern Railway Company, and the appointment of Chairman of the Board of Works is not vacant till March 22nd; so there has, as yet, been no need to obtain the Treasury's consent to his appearing as witness. After he has taken up his duties as Chairman of the Board of Works his position in this respect will, of course, be altered.

Are the facts as I suggested

Certainly; after the 22nd March, or whenever he takes up his appointment, he will have to get the leave of the Treasury.

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, having regard to the fact that Mr. Robertson will, at no distant date, have to take over the control of a department which may be concerned in the administration of this new railway, it is not undesirable that he should put himself in the position of opposing this Bill.

As long as he is a servant of the Great Northern Railway Company, they have a right to employ him as a witness; but after he has entered upon the duties of Chairman of the Irish Board of Works, he ought not to give evidence without the permission of the Treasury; and that permission will not be given except for some very good reason.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is the intention of the Military authorities to make a rifle range at or near Dunstable?

The question of establishing a rifle range near Dunstable is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any steps will be taken to provide a covered gymnasium, like that given the Meath School at Blackrock, to the Baltimore Industrial School?

The cost of providing a gymnasium at the Blackrock School was derived from private sources, and no portion of it was contributed by the Government. A gymnasium would no doubt be a great addition to the Baltimore School, and those interested in that institution would, I believe, render it good service by imitating the example set by the managers of the Meath School and endeavour to raise funds for the purpose.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Special Order passed by the Privy Council for the muzzling of all dogs in public places is now in force in all districts where cases of rabies in dogs have been reported; and, whether the special exemption of dogs used for sport or the destruction of vermin still continues; and, if so, why?

I am not at all clear to what Order the hon. Member refers; no Special Order for the muzzling of dogs generally having been passed by the Board of Agriculture, or, as I am informed, by the Irish Privy Council. The Regulations of the London County Council under which muzzling is required in the Metropolis contain an exemption in favour of packs of hounds and for sheep dogs, but not for dogs used for the destruction of vermin.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, will he explain why the Order prescribing the forms in which accounts of Parish Councils must be made up have not yet been issued by the Local Government Board, although it was stated in a circular of the Board, dated 12th December 1894, that such an Order was then in course of preparation; and, whether, in view of the fact that these accounts must be made up to the 31st March, he will cause the Order to be issued without further delay?

The Local Government Board, in May of last year, issued an Order prescribing the form of the Financial Statement showing the receipts and expenditure of the Parish Councils, but they have thought it desirable to defer the issue of an Order prescribing further forms and books of account until greater experience has been obtained as to the duties undertaken by Parish Councils, and as to the forms of account which could be most conveniently adopted.

I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether Government intend to introduce a Land Transfer Bill this Session?

The Bill is prepared; but in view of the not very rapid progress of Government Measures I should not like to give any pledge as to when it will be introduced.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it has been computed what amount will be expended from loan in the year 1896–7 for matters connected with Military and Naval expenditure, such, for example, as barracks and Naval works?

The estimated figures of expenditure on barracks and Naval works in the year 1896–7 are—for Barracks Act, £600,000, which will be provided by loan; and for Naval works, which will be provided according to the proposals in the Naval Works Bill, a maximum sum of £2,750,000.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the increasing dependence of the United Kingdom upon foreign countries for its wheat supplies, the Government will take steps to secure the acceptance as a principle of international law, of the contention advanced by the United States in 1794, that provisions can only be treated as "contraband of war" when destined for a place actually invested or blockaded?

I cannot venture to give an opinion to my hon. Friend upon the expediency of the change in international law which he proposes; but I think, whatever be the view taken on the subject, he will probably agree that it is not an opportune moment at which to raise the question. [Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now in a position to state when the National Portrait Gallery will be opened to the public?

I understand that the Trustees propose to open the Gallery to the public on Saturday, April 4, provided that the appointments in the new staff of the curator, the resident officers, and police are sufficiently advanced to enable them so to do. There is, therefore, some doubt about the date, but the curator hopes in any case that it will not be very long after that time.

asked whether there would be any public ceremony on the occasion?

I do not think it is contemplated to have any public ceremony in connection with the opening

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to make to the House of Commons any statement with reference to the advance of troops in the valley of the Nile which has been announced in the public papers; and whether they will make a statement as to the facts and the object of such a movement, if it is about to take place?

My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will make a statement on behalf of the Government.

If my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is swollen to somewhat unusual dimensions, I hope the House will pardon me, because of the importance of the question to be raised. ["Hear, hear!"] The House is justly entitled to somewhat full information on a matter of such great interest, and I promised on Friday last, to make a statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman asks what are the facts and the objects of the reported advance of Egyptian troops in the valley of the Nile. For some weeks past the Government have received rumours of a contemplated advance by the Dervish troops in large numbers into Upper Egypt. [Ironical laughter from below the, Opposition Gangway and Ministerial cries of "Order"]. These advances were heard of as threatening three separate objectives. The first was in the direction of Murad Wells, between Korosko and Abu Hamed; the second upon Kokreb, midway between Berber and Suakin; and we also heard that Osman Digna [Mr T. M. HEALY; "Hear, hear," and cries of "Order"] was advancing with considerable forces in the direction of Kassala. Simultaneously news reached Cairo that reinforcements were being pushed forward to Dongola. This news reached the Government at the end of February; and it portended, in the opinion of our advisers in Egypt and of the Government at home, a serious advance on the part of the Dervish forces, the immediate objective of which was, or at any rate might be, Kassala, but the ultimate danger of which could not fail to react upon Egypt itself. Considerable anxiety was naturally felt at this serious news, the more so as already at that time the Italian forces were known to be in difficulties on the western shore of the Red Sea. Then came the unfortunate events at Adowa; and I hope I may say in passing that I believe there is no one in this House or in this country who did not learn with sincere sympathy and regret—["no, no!" vehemently from Mr. T. M. HEALY and other Nationalists, mingled with cries of "Served them right," and Ministerial cheers]—a regret that is not broken by a few dissentient voices in this House—[loud cheers]—of the misfortune that had befallen a nation of gallant soldiers and staunch allies. [Cheers and Nationalist dissent.] We have, I am sure, all of us, that belief in the recuperative power and the courage of the Italian troops which convinces us that they will rise again from the misfortune which they have suffered to vindicate the honour of their flag. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!" ironical laughter, and Ministerial cheers.] These events and this disaster were attended with a double danger. The Italians had not only been engaged in conflict with the Abyssinian forces, but, as is well known, they have a large force in occupation of the fort of Kassala. That position is threatened, if not beleagured, by a body of Dervishes believed to amount to 10,000 men. It has been obvious to every man who has studied this question—and I think it will be obvious to everyone who considers it in this House—that there are at the present moment influences at work and forces unchained in Central Africa which, if flushed by victory and if swollen by any perfectly possible combination of arms, may constitute a serious danger, not merely to Italy, to Egypt, and to the British position in Egypt, but I will go further and say to the cause of Europe, which is the cause of civilisation in Africa. [Cheers and ironical laughter.] If Kassala were cut off, it is perfectly clear that the forces detached from Kassala would be free to move as they liked. They might descend either upon Tokar and Suakin, or pour down the valley of the Nile; and in either case the frontiers of Egypt would be confronted with no slight risk. The Government have been in constant communication with the Egyptian Government and their military advisers at Cairo; and it was the opinion of the military authorities, both there and here, that immediate action required to be taken. Of course various suggestions were put forward and discussed, and it was decided that it would be for both the present and permanent interest of Egypt that an advance should be made up the valley of the Nile. ["Hear, hear!"] An advance has been ordered to Akasheh, which is on the river at about one-third of the distance between Wady Haifa and Dongola. I have seen a great deal in the papers about an advance upon Dongola. It seems to me to have been assumed that such an advance had already been ordered and was in process of taking place. The British advance may ultimately extend to Dongola, the importance of which, as one of the granaries of the Upper Nile basin, is familiar to everyone who has at all studied the question of Egypt. But it is not quite usual to publish your plan of campaign beforehand. ["Hear, hear!"] It might not on this occasion be wise, and in any case the future action of the Government must be regulated by considerations not merely military, but also political and financial—["hear, hear!"]—which it would obviously be improper for me to enter into in answer to a Question in this House. The Government firmly hope that the step on which they have decided will have this twofold advantage—on the one hand, that it will act as a diversion for the help and it may be for the relief of the Italians in their sore stress at Kassala, and, on the other, that it may save Egypt from a menace which, if left alone, would grow and swell, and before long might reach most formidable dimensions.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very clear and, it will be admitted, a very important statement—a statement which, unquestionably, the House would desire to have an opportunity of discussing; and, therefore, I rise to ask the Leader of the House what opportunity will be given to the House of discussing this very grave matter? I understood certainly on Friday that such an opportunity would arise in Committee upon the Army Estimates, but it has come to my knowledge that that will not be allowed. We are in this curious position with reference to the Army Estimates apparently, that, although a vote for 10,000 or 20,000 men is put down, we cannot inquire what is to be done with them or where they are to go. Therefore, some other opportunity must be vouchsafed to the House, more particularly as I observed the phrase in the Under Secretary's statement that this was not merely a military movement, but that there were political considerations underlying it—a very important adjective in connection with this question. I only rise now for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman, what opportunity the House will have of discussing this matter?

The demand which the right hon. Gentleman has made for an early opportunity of discussing the statement, the very able statement, just made by my right hon. Friend, is one the justice of which everybody will recognise. As the right hon. Gentleman has told the House, that opportunity will not be afforded on the Army Estimates this evening. There remain, therefore, so far as I am able to judge, only two alternatives—either that the adjournment of the House should be moved to-night upon an urgent matter of public importance, or that the House should wait till Thursday or Friday, when, I believe, a day might be arranged for a more regular and, in some respects, a more convenient opportunity of discussing the question. There is no doubt that if the Vote on account is put down for Thursday or Friday, and if the salary of the Foreign Minister were first, among the Votes to be taken, a very full opportunity would be given to the House of dealing in Committee of Supply with the whole subject. On the other hand, the second plan has the disadvantage of delaying for two or three days a discussion on which the House might be eager to enter at the present moment. It is not for me to say which of those two courses will be the better. As far as the Government, as a Government, are concerned we are indifferent. But I should rather be disposed to say that the regular course would also be the best.

said he had intended, on going into Committee of Supply, to have gone into the entire question, of how we went to Egypt and why we had remained there; but the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was so exceedingly important that he should put aside the, general question in order to address himself to this contemplated action. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that we were going there in the name of civilisation and of Europe. Every expedition into Africa, every attempt to massacre free men [Irish cheers], was made in the name, of civilisation; but as to Europe, if he could gather aright from the expression of opinion of French, German, and other countries' newspapers, Europe did not at all appreciate the mission which we had taken upon ourselves. Proceeding to explain the position in regard to the Soudan, he remarked that, when it was said that Ismail Pasha conquered the Soudan, he did not mean it in what we should consider the proper acceptation of the word. Ismail Pasha himself—and he had an opportunity often, of talking to him on the subject—always told him he never had conquered the Soudan. What he said he had done was to place garrisons in some large towns or fortress stations, and that he maintained communications with the garrisons by paying blackmail or road-money to the independent tribes. Practically, most of the Arab tribes when Ismail Pasha was there were independent, and, in addition to their independence, they received certain sums of money for allowing the then Khedive to place garrisons within the limits over which they ruled. After Ismail Pasha had ceased to be Khedive, as they knew, there was a rebellion in the Soudan, and Hicks Pasha was sent to reconquer it, but, as they also knew, he was defeated. Then we sent General Gordon, to the Soudan, not to maintain the rule of the Khedive, but to evacuate as soon as he could the whole Soudan. General Gordon apparently did not understand his instructions, and sought to maintain himself at Khartum. We then had to send out an expedition, which, unfortunately, did not reach Khartum in time; but we definitely withdrew, and Egypt withdrew, from all connection with the Soudan. But along the coastline of the Soudan there were two or three different towns—Suakin, Massowah, and one or two places which had been held to be under Egypt. We undertook—perhaps it was a mistake—when we went to Egypt, not only to defend Egypt proper, but also the position in those particular towns. Since we went to Suakin a new element had been imported into the politics of that part of the world—he alluded to Italy. Italy, when every country was looking for spheres of influence in Africa, came to the conclusion that she ought to take Assib, in the vicinity of the mouth of the Red Sea. Afterwards she became anxious to increase her territory, and we, in that benevolent way with which we liked to deal with property that did not belong to us, bestowed Massowah, one of the Egyptian ports, upon Italy. Besides this, Italy insisted, he believed with the consent of England, upon, regarding the Hinterland as within her sphere of influence. In this Hinterland was Abyssinia, which had always sought, and wisely sought, to have a port on the seaboard. The Italians were not satisfied with Massowah; they wanted practically the whole of Abyssinia. They made a treaty with one of the Kings—the King of Tigré—by which he conceded a portion of the country to them, and recognised their protectorate over the whole of Abyssinia. This made the Abyssinians angry, and they deserted the King of Tigré, and rallied to the other King—Menelik—who was now regarded as Negus or Emperor; and who protested against the concessions made to the Italians. No one, the hon. Member said, was a warmer friend of Italy than, he was; but it was Italy in Italy, not Italy in Africa. His sympathies were with the men to whom the country belonged, and who were struggling against a foreign invasion. [Cheers.] And he had with him all the Radicals of Italy. There were riots and disturbances going on there in protest against this war, which was forced upon Italy by Signor Crispi in order to divert attention from the internal affairs of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the condition of Kassala. But Kassala belonged to the Soudanese; their garrison was driven out by the Italians, and what was more natural or more proper than that they should endeavour to recover the town? And no one could reasonably complain that they seized upon Italy's difficulty as their opportunity. They had been told that the expedition was only going one third of the way to Dongola; but it was absolutely certain that the advance would be continued until Dongola was reached. This was a very serious matter. The distance was 500 miles, and we knew the difficulties we experienced when we sought to go from Wady Halfa to Khartum. The House was told that the expedition would consist of Egyptian troops, but the right hon. gentleman did not deny that practically, to all intents and purposes, it was to be an English force. It was true that the Egyptian troops under English officers would be pushed on in advance; but the report was not denied that a large force of English troops was to be collected at Wady Halfa in readiness to advance if necessary. One reason given for the advance was the fear that the Dervishes, supposed to be collected at Dongola and in the neighbourhood of Kassala, might sweep down on Egypt. There had only been two attempts by the Dervishes to attack Egypt since we had been there. The first was in 1885, and was immediately suppressed. The second was in 1889. General Sir Francis Grenfell, who was then in command of the Egyptian troops, described the Dervishes as a poor weakly crowd, dying of thirst and hunger. The consequence was they were routed by a small force of Egyptian troops. There could be no better defence of Egypt than to have the frontier at Assuan and the advance post at Wady Halfa, and to put the desert between Egypt and the Soudan. It was perfectly absurd to describe the Soudanese as menacing Egypt. It was a mere pretext put forward by the Government; and his complaint always was that they were so abnormally hypocritical in regard to these raids and attacks upon Africa. At one moment it was the slave trade, though there were more slaves in the Island of Pemba, which was under our protectorate, than in the whole of the Soudan. Then it was the question of commerce and civilisation. We might get a little commerce by these raids, but really it was that mania for grabbing which seemed to distinguish us at the present time that was at the bottom of the whole matter. The financiers were exceedingly anxious that we should take the Soudan. They had always been at the bottom of our interference in Egypt. The first Lord of the Admiralty went as the representative of these loan-mongers, of whom he was one, and made the arrangement which led to our being in Egypt. These financiers always had their grip upon the Government; they always insisted upon our doing something to remain in Egypt. Then there were the ultra-jingoes, who wished to establish our rule from Alexandria to Cape Town. Proceeding, the hon. Member said they were told by the Government organs that Dongola was a fertile province. It fed the Soudanese, and it was hoped, by destroying the crops, to starve the Soudanese into submission. Did we suppose that the brave Arabs would submit to that. We knew what had happened at Suakin, and if we plunged into their country in this fashion the war would last not only months, but possibly years. What was the ultimate end? We should go from Dongola to Khartum. [Ministerial Cheers.] He read a very interesting article that morning in The Times which explained the happy future before the Soudanese, the Egyptians, and ourselves. The Times said:—

"It is now quite possible to give the Soudan good government through Egyptian officials trained in English ways and supervised as they are in Egypt itself, by Englishmen." ["Hear, hear!"]"

The Times, and the gentlemen who cheered, said that, while we were to remain in Egypt because the Egyptians could not govern themselves, we were to aid the Egyptians to go to the Soudan in order to enable them to govern the Soudan. Could anything be more absolutely absurd? He was perfectly certain that, if the Under Secretary attempted to lay down the western frontier of the Soudan he would probably get into considerable difficulty with the Great Powers of Europe, who would not be likely to assent to his view of the boundaries of this new State, which was to be put under Egyptian officials with Englishmen to supervise them. The right hon. Gentleman said one reason for going to Dongola was to help the Italians. But why were they to help the Italians, and against whom were they to help them? The Abyssinians were a very ancient and a very Christian people. They had a considerable measure of civilisation, and he had no doubt that their mode of civilisation was far better for their country and their climate than any civilisation which would be imposed upon them by an Italian Protectorate. But the Italian Government, warned by the Radicals in Italy, was prepared to treat with King Menelik; and was it not encouraging the Italian Government not to treat, and, against the wishes of the majority of their own people, to send a quantity of miserable Italian troops to be vanquished again, possibly, if this Government came forward and said they were willing to aid and abet them in this thing? It was all pretext to say they were defending Egypt by going into the Soudan. It might be that the Government was anxious to hold out a helping hand to Italy, but that was a mere pretext for going into the Soudan. The real object that they had in going there was to place themselves in such a position that they would be unable to fulfil the pledges they had given to Europe. How long were they going to remain there? They had said they were going to remain in Egypt until they had established and brought into proper order the government of Egypt. ["Hear, hear!"] Were they going to remain in the Soudan until they had done the same in the Soudan, and were they going to remain in Egypt until they had done that in the Soudan? Who did not know perfectly well that the Great Powers of Europe were shocked and disgusted with their violation of their pledges. [Ministerial laughter.] Did hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that they were violating their pledges? Did hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that they pledged themselves that their occupation would be merely temporary; and did anyone pretend to say that, when one country went into and occupied another country and remained there for 14 years, without at the end of 14 years having the slightest appearance of any intention of withdrawing, that was, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, a temporary occupation of the country? He said their occupation had become permanent, and it was in order that they might continue it and remain there until they had established the "Alexandria to the Cape" doctrine that they were undertaking this Soudan expedition, which would oblige them to remain there for the next 100 years. The fact was that the pleas for remaining in Egypt on tins ground and on that ground were entirely played out with Europe, and they wanted to find some fresh reason. He should have thought that the Soudanese might at least have been recognised, as they were described by Mr. Gladstone, as "brave men rightly struggling to be free." [Nationalist cheers.] They were conquered by Ismail, and he established garrisons among them, but they rose against Egyptain domination, and for 15 years they had had a de facto Government among themselves. Why they had always refused to treat with that Government he had never yet understood. ["Hear, hear!"] But they shut them up. They told them they would allow no imports to go into the country and no exports to go out of the country, whereas if they were simply to let exports go from the country they would do infinitely more to civilise and conquer the Soudan than by sending such an expedition. The grounds for the maintenance of their rule in Egypt had been reduced to such a pass that it was actually urged, as one reason why they should take and occupy the Soudan, that it was possible that some great engineer would arise in the Soudan and say, "I will divert the course of the Nile; nothing simpler," and the great engineer would at once do it, and Egypt would be ruined. The Nile was a very old river. [Laughter.] It had flowed in its present course for a very long time, and really, before engaging in this expedition on such a ground, they might wait until the great engineer commenced his operations. The First Lord of the Admiralty had boasted of their "splendid isolation." Did he want to add to their "splendid isolation?" There was a feeling that they had not kept their faith with regard to Egypt. That feeling harmed them wherever they came into negotiation with foreign countries. Did they wish to increase that feeling by throwing down in this way the gauntlet to Europe, and telling them they were going to remain, not only in Egypt, but in Egypt and the Soudan, as long as they pleased? And, to add insult to injury, the right hon. Gentleman told them they did that in the name of Europe. Had they a mandate from Europe? No. [Nationalist cheers.] Let them go and get their mandate from Europe. Let them go to some conference and obtain an agreement with Europe, but let them not, when they knew perfectly well that Europe was opposed to their remaining in Egypt, tell the House that they remained there, and were going further, for the sake of Europe and civilisation. [Cheers.] He should have thought they had enough upon their hands at the present moment. ["Hear, hear!"] But he contended they were under pledges to Frances which precluded them from going to the Soudan without the assent of France. In 1893 a Yellow-book was published containing a vast mass of correspondence between this country and France and between France and the Porte and Egypt from 1884 to 1893. He saw that in 1886 the Government of Egypt wanted to reconquer, or wanted to get this country to reconquer for them, the Soudan. At that time the Turkish Government opposed the increase that would have been required in the Egyptian Army, and the French Government supported the Turkish Government because they, too, were opposed to the Egyptian Army being practically a British Army. Monsieur Waddington, who was then Ambassador here, wrote on 15th March 1886:—

"I have just seen Mr. Gladstone. He authorises me to inform you that his Government definitely renounces all attempt to retake Dongola,"

There was a definite announcement given to the French Government that they refused definitely ever to retake Dongola. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Well, if they liked to quarrel with France and to declare that they repudiated the assurance given by Mr. Gladstone, of course they could do so at their own risk and peril. In a memorandum to Mukhtar Pasha, which was communicated to the French Government, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff wrote that—

"the Government of Her Majesty regrets not being able to find itself in accord with the views of Mukhtar Pasha as to the necessity or the propriety of re-occupying Dongola by Egyptian troops under actual circumstances. The advice given by Her Majesty's Government to the Egyptian Government in December 1883, after the defeat of General Hicks, was that all the territory south of Assuan, and, in any case, south of Wady Haifa, should be abandoned. Recent circumstances have confirmed this view, and the Government of Her Majesty cannot consent to associate itself directly or indirectly in an enterprise which would lead to an effort too severe for the material and financial resources of the country without securing proportionate advantages."

Therefore, he claimed that the French Government had a right to understand that they were going absolutely to limit their occupation in Egypt proper, and that unless they obtained the assent and concurrence of France and other Powers they ought not to make this advance into the Soudan. Statements had been made by Liberal and Conservative Governments that they were anxious to withdraw not only on account of their pledges, but because the occupation of Egypt was a source of permanent danger to themselves. He had always thought Lord Salisbury to be relatively a cautious statesman. Lord Salisbury had never said his mission was to peg out claims for posterity in Africa; when they spoke of spheres of influence, Lord Salisbury sneered at it, and when some ardent spirits on his own side were anxious that this country should go to war with Russia in regard to some district in Central Asia, his Lordship told them to go and study big maps. [Laughter.] No doubt Lord Salisbury, after a little trumpeting, was going to agree to arbitration with regard to Venezuela. ["Hear, hear!'''] In a certain way he had a great respect for Lord Salisbury in his acts as a Foreign Minister. But Lord Salisbury, like most Leaders, had to count with very foolish men. [Laughter.] He therefore paid them in words, but when it came to action he knew nobody, except himself, who was more of a Little Englander than Lord Salisbury was. He could not understand why he had agreed in this new course, which seemed contrary to all his traditions and statements, and contrary to what they might have expected from his intelligence. He wanted to know what baleful influence Lord Salisbury was under. [Laughter.] Was there somebody in the Cabinet, powerful in the Cabinet, with a following outside the Cabinet in this House, who was insisting on his own way? [''Hear, hear!"] They knew there were Gentlemen in that House who were always insisting on having their own way and who were very troublesome. He could conceive their being troublesome in the Cabinet, and he could not help thinking the Conservative Party was being treated very unfairly, and that there was someone—a Liberal Unionist, let them say—of influence, position, and determination who himself took very strong views in regard to what they ought to do in Africa and elsewhere, and who was using the influence he possessed over Lord Salisbury. [''Hear!"] If so, he sincerely hoped Lord Salisbury would emancipate himself from this influence. Lord Salisbury had always been strongly against the occupation of Egypt, and he could not be in favour of this occupation of the Soudan. [''Hear, hear!"] He recalled Lord Salisbury to his wiser moments; he asked him to trust to the Conservatives behind his back, to crush out any of these attempts on the part of those who would not call themselves Conservatives, but who were allies of the Conservatives and helped to keep them in office, to divert him from the policy of wisdom and moderation which he pursued in the main when he was last in power, and to substitute for it that very policy which he had been the very first himself to protest against over and over again. [''Hear, hear!"] For his part, as he opposed and resisted every single Vote for money in aid of the Suakin expedition, whatever others might do he should oppose and resist to the best of his ability every single shilling proposed to be spent in regard to this Soudanese expedition. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed himself it would lower their name in the whole of Europe. They might be certain that sooner or later the Great Powers of Europe would unite and insist on England's fulfilling her pledges in regard to Egypt, and this was why he was anxious they should not compromise their position, and should not do anything of no possible advantage to them or the inhabitants of the Soudan, but which would put them entirely in the wrong with the whole of Europe. [Cheers.]

was glad to have the opportunity of rising to support this Motion, though from a slightly different point of view from that taken by his hon. Friend. There was no subject upon which he had had a stronger opinion than this. His hon. Friend did not in military or naval affairs take the same view as he did, for he went much further than the Member for Northampton in the matter of what was necessary in the way of military and naval provision for the defence of the Empire. But, holding that view, he only held the more strongly the unwisdom, the imprudence, and the folly of the expedition that was being prepared at the present time. ["Hear, hear!"] If their dangers in Europe were as great as many of them thought, this moment of all moments was the most peculiarly unhappy for a new departure such as that which was being taken by the Government. [''Hear, hear!"] The way in which the matter had come before the House was peculiar, and in his experience unparalleled. The importance of the subject—suddenly sprung upon them, unheard of until four days ago—was admitted by the Government in their Statement and by the House in the leave to bring this Motion for Adjournment. He associated himself entirely with his hon. Friend in saying that there was no desire to give a Party character to it. Although since the present Government had been in office their dangers in the world had become more apparent, he did not believe that until a few days ago they had become more real. But this new step which had been taken by the Government did enormously increase the dangers of their situation in the world, and was likely to hamper them in all their International actions and any dealing with any power for many years to come. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend in making this Motion had spoken of the defensibility of the Egyptian frontier. The Under Secretary based the earlier portion of his case for the advance of the Egyptian army to Dongola on the possible danger to Egypt of an advance on the part of the Dervishes of which the Government had heard only in the last few weeks. They had advanced in four directions, very diverse, being about 800 miles apart. Egypt was in the position of having one of the most easily defended frontiers at this particular side that any Power in the world possessed. The late Khedive, Ismail Pasha, who knew the Soudan and the Soudanese, always stated that it was entirely unnecessary on the grounds of safety that Egypt should hold anything beyond Wady Halfa. Wady Halfa was a perfectly defensible position, which when they considered the tribes to the South of it, had been defended for some years past with extraordinary cheapness and ease. At the time when the Dervishes were at the height of their Power, when the Madhi was stronger than he had ever been before or his successors since, at a moment when the population of the Soudan was not dying of starvation as they were told they were now, the Khalifa, when he, was all-powerful, sent his best generals with instructions to conquer Egypt. He marched against the Egyptian forces 16,000 or 18,000 of his best men. They knew of all the fine troops in the world for desert fighting, the Dervishes were the best. The best of their generals at the head of their finest troops were sent against Egypt. But what were they able to accomplish? Many died of starvation and of thirst in the desert, and the remnants were easily overcome by the Egyptian army, before the English troops had arrived. They had thus a safe frontier against an enemy of this kind which they ought not to quit in order to march across the, desert in which so many of the Dervishes died of starvation on the occasion to which he referred. With regard to Italy, her best friends in Europe were those who most regretted the adventure upon which she had recently embarked. His hon. Friend had spoken as though in Italy itself the adventure was condemned only by the Radical Party, but every party in Italy had in turn disowned it, and the present composite Ministry on coming into office at first tried to make the terms that they should be allowed to agree to a peace and discontinue this expedition. ["Hear, hear!"] Were we sure Italy would thank us for the diversion made in her support? Italy was likely to say, as her newspapers had already said—

"If you want to help us, send troops from Suakin in the direction of Tokar, somewhere near the neighbourhood where we shall be engaged, not 700 or 800 miles in the opposite direction."

If they considered the enormous distance which separated these different portions of the Soudan, and the time it took a Native army, or any army, to travel, they would know the fate of Kassala would have been decided ten times over before the rumour of our advance had reached the Dervishes. This expedition towards Dongola could hardly be put before them as a diversion in favour of the Italians. What was the real reason for the advance? He was sorry to say he could not believe that either the safety of Egypt nor a diversion in favour of the Italians could be the real ground why this advance had been decided upon. What would be said throughout Europe by our enemies—and we had not many friends—was that the advance was obviously indefensible from the point of view put forward in its favour, and was being made really in order that we might have an excuse for remaining in Egypt for all time. He feared there was a different view underlying this advance on the part of those in Egypt who advised it. Dongola was not on the way to Kassala, but it was on the way to Dar Fur. It was also on the way to Khartoum and somewhere else, and there was a great trade route which led across the desert from Dongola. The Egyptian forces had lost that route. Dar Fur was in the heart of Africa, and led into a country which had been the subject of dispute between this country, the Congo State, and France. There was a certain lease made by Lord Rosebery and torn up by France, Lord Rosebery leased certain territories on the west side of the Nile to the Congo State, and France stepped in and forced the Congo to destroy that document. Now, it was to some extent no man's land. We claimed it as Egyptian and partly within our sphere of influence. On the other hand, the French had shown they did not recognise, that claim by the manner in which they treated the Congo State. Dar Fur lay in front of Dongola, and he could not but fear that those who had advised this advance had in view the necessity establishing our position in Dar Fur as the centre of a great African kingdom to which they looked forward in the future. We were entering on this expedition—his feeling of the gravity of which he only wished he could adequately express—with obviously insufficient means. If we were merely going to cross a strip of desert 100 or 200 miles in advance we should be doing what was not necessary for the defence of Egypt, and would be useless as a diversion in favour of the Italians. If we were only going to do this useless thing it might possibly be done without great danger. If the feeeling of the country should be roused and people should show what their opinion was with regard to this policy of reckless adventure, possibly the matter might stop there. It might turn out that we had taken up a defensible instead of an indefensible frontier, and no great harm might be done. But was it not likely that we should be drawn on step by step, that the Egyptian forces would be attacked, and the 79 British officers who were with them sacrificed? Was it not likely that they would be attacked, and if not attacked, elated by apparent success at first, they would press on towards Khartoum and Dar Fur, and ultimately a British force would have to be sent to their support. It would be a mean thing to throw Egypt into this financial and military confusion by our orders and instructions, for no one could say that the Egyptian Government was a free agent in the matter. It would be a mean thing to do this if we were not prepared to back up the Egyptian forces by the whole force of British arms. [Cheers.] There lay in front of the Egyptian army which was going into Dongola an awful desert, inhabited by the most frightful fighting power that existed in the whole world. For what end or sufficient object were we risking this great danger? It was demonstrably not the case that the tranquillity of Egypt depended on the Soudan. That had been disproved for years. The view was held at one time by many distinguished men, but the experience of the past few years proved that the Egyptian frontier could be easily and cheaply held from the base of Wady Halfa, and if they went beyond that for reasons which could not be the safety of Egypt or a diversion in favour of the Italians, but which must be with a view to an empire in the Soudan—the existence of which was opposed to the very conditions of British power—he was convinced that it would only lead us into an adventure of a most dangerous kind. [Cheers.]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and I believe of all the occurrences—many and serious as they have been—which have come to the public knowledge in the course of the last few months, none is more grave and pregnant with dangerous consequences for the future than that which has been announced by the Government to-night. The Government, as I understand, desire to represent that this is only a small necessary move of a military character for the purpose of avoiding passing dangers arising out of recent occurrences. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, if this is the true interpretation of the matter, it may pass off without serious consequences; but, if this is merely the first step in a policy of advance—of what is called a forward policy—in Egypt, in my opinion that is a policy of a most perilous character, one which ought to be strongly condemned, and which, I venture to say, by the Party on this side of the House, will be met with the most strenuous resistance. [Cheers.] If there is any contemplation of making this occupation of the Soudan permanent in character, that is a policy which we have always opposed, and which we shall always resist. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, in commenting upon the possible policy of the Government in this matter, expressed his opinion that Lord Salisbury's views on this matter were not to be feared; he indicated that there might be other influences on the Cabinet that were of a more adventurous character and would desire probably to make a move, in a political sense, in that direction. The only fault I have to find with the hon. Member for Northampton is that he is, perhaps, a little too suspicious. For my part, I feel that the views which Lord Salisbury has so often expressed of his Egyptian policy have a strong supporter in one of the most distinguished members of the Cabinet, because I remember very well, in years gone by, when the disasters in the Soudan were fresh upon us, a very eminent politician of that day expressed views in which I, who had the honour of being his colleague, entirely concurred. I will read them to the House, because I trust they are still the views of the Colonial Secretary. Speaking of the pledges that we should retire from Egypt, the right hon. Gentleman said:—

"The fulfilment of the pledges has been delayed by circumstances which could not have been foreseen. Now there has grown up, in certain quarters, a demand that our policy shall be changed, and that we should make ourselves permanently responsible for the government and protectorate of Egypt. I should be inclined to pay some attention to the advice if it had not come from a suspicious quarter. It comes from those who have always been in favour of annexation. There is a great party in this country"

—these are words which we should do well to remember—

''which seems to have learnt nothing by experience, which is always eager for the expansion of an Empire already, I should think, vast enough to please the most inordinate ambition, and which taxes our resources to the utmost in the attempt to govern it wisely and well."

Well, then, if there were any attempt on the part of the Government to embark upon the policy of extending an Empire already, in the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, "vast enough to please the most inordinate ambition," and which already taxes the resources of the country almost beyond their power, we know that in him we shall have a strong supporter of a moderate and a peaceful policy. Therefore, I will not for the present assume there is any intention on the part of the Government to give to this movement on the Nile any other significance than that which is contained in the statement of the Under Secretary. We have seen in the Press, which is generally so well informed, statements that we are going to advance to Dongola. The Under Secretary denies that they are going to advance to Dongola, and says they are going to advance to only one-third of the distance. We have also seen in journals which are supposed to represent the policy of the Government that what is intended ultimately is the occupation of the Soudan. That I understand to be repudiated by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and I take note of that repudiation. If anything of the kind were intended, I am confident that anything more injurious to this country, anything more fatal to the peace of Europe than an attempt of that character, it is impossible to conceive. Therefore, until we have further information on this subject, we are bound to assume that the statement on the part of the Government is that this is simply a move intended for military purposes to meet a present and temporary situation, that it has no connection whatever with any intention to advance upon the Soudan with a view to its permanent occupation. It is impossible at present to go behind the information given us by the Under Secretary, but we still have, I think, an early opportunity of discussing this matter in its larger bearingson a Vote of Account it may be, or on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates. Then it will be open to any Member to discuss this Egyptian question in its wider aspect. I only rose for the purpose of saying what I understand to be the statement made on the part of the Government—that there is in it no confirmation of the idea that this is a step in the direction of the occupation of the Soudan. If any indication of that kind were given on the part of the Government, of course it would be absolutely necessary that we should take some measure to offer all the resistance we could to a policy of that description. [Cheers.]

In the latter part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he rather indicated the opinion, as I understood him, that the larger points raised by this Debate had Letter be discussed, not on this Motion, but later in the week, on the Vote on Account. If that be the view of the Opposition, as it appears to be the view of the Leader of the Opposition, I hope we may soon bring this particular Debate to a conclusion. If that be done I shall be glad to carry out the arrangement, which I indicated earlier in the evening, and to put the Foreign Office Vote first on the Vote on Account. But the House will see that to have a Debate on the Motion for Adjournment and also on the Vote on Account is, I will not say unreasonable, but it is going a good deal beyond the proposition I made to the House. Assuming the right hon. Gentleman to represent generally the views of others on his side of the House, I shall deal briefly with the speeches which have been addressed to the House, and shall then ask it to come to a decision on the question of Adjournment, and to defer further discussion to Thursday or Friday. The right hon Gentleman has informed us that he listened with attention to my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary, and has taken note of his statement with regard to the ultimate object of the expedition. What my right hon. Friend stated was this—he stated that an advance was to be made immediately to Akasheh, and that it was premature to discuss any further steps to be taken, for that would depend upon financial and military considerations which we could not now have before us, and, therefore, could not possibly discuss. I think that the repetition of what my right hon. Friend said may make it perfectly clear what the position of the Government is upon this question—a view which may perhaps be misunderstood if Gentlemen were to take their impression of what the Government had stated solely from the reflection of that statement as seen in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. ["Hear, hear!"] If I understood the Mover of this Motion rightly, he rejoiced at the defeat sustained by the Italians in Abyssinia. In that certainly I do not think he expresses the view of a single Member on this side of the House—[cheers]—or the view of the vast majority of Gentlemen sitting on the other side—["hear, hear!"]—and I am sure he does not faithfully reflect the convictions of the English people. [Cheers.] I go further, and I say that those nations in Europe whose policy may seem most divergent from that of Italy will agree with us in expressing genuine and profound sympathy with Italy on account of the reverse which her arms have recently sustained. [Cheers.] The hon. Member is not content with rejoicing over the defeat of Italy; he also rejoices in the recrudescence of the fanatical violence which characterised the earlier forms of Mahdism, and of the anarchy which prevailed in the country over which the Mahdi ruled. As regards the character of the rule of the Mahdi, it is not necessary for me to enter into controversy with the hon. Member; I hand him over to the tender mercies of the right hon. Baronet sitting near him. I doubt whether the world has ever seen a crueller or a worse rule than that exercised over the provinces of the Soudan by those of whom the hon. Member for Northampton speaks as a nation struggling to be free.

I quoted the words of Mr. Gladstone. [Laughter.]

It is not my business to enter into controversy with Mr. Gladstone. It is sufficient for me that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, as I understood on his own responsibility, that view with regard to the Soudan; and from that view I express my absolute dissent. I can conceive of no change that would be more beneficial to the Soudan—I say nothing of England and nothing of Egypt—than that the allegiance of those Arab troops should be transferred to a Government acting under English influences; I can conceive of nothing which would more conduce to their freedom and real welfare, or to the prosperity of this nation of which the hon. Gentleman professes to be the advocate. When the hon. Gentleman tells us he would see with regret any modification in the existing state of anarchy and tyranny under which the Soudan groans, I do not believe that even.

I said I should prefer that brave men struggling to be free should be left to enjoy their own independence, rather than be subject to the rule of England.

What the hon. Gentleman described as a very small incident is the enforced subjection to a tyrannical and anarchical régime, for whoso real characteristics I refer him to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Dilke) sitting next him. [Cheers.] The latter right hon. Gentleman has spoken with a great deal of obviously genuine emotion on this subject, and has expressed a view which I listened to with the respect with which I listen to every genuine expression of feeling; but, I confess, with, the greatest surprise. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that no event which has occurred in his long political experience had ever filled him with such alarm as the decision which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has just announced. I confess I listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Dilke) with amazement; and that amazement was not diminished when I listened to the grounds upon which he based the expression of his views. If I rightly represent the right hon. Gentleman, there were, four grounds. He said, in the first place, that Europe is jealous.

I described what would be said by our enemies throughout the world; but I did not speak of Governments—I spoke rather of the popular opinion.

It is very difficult to gauge popular opinion in foreign countries, and I am sure that no accurate measure of public opinion can be derived from the trend of the foreign Press, which certainly has not always conduced to the maintenance of agreeable relations between the different Powers of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as the Governments themselves are concerned, nothing has reached our ears that would induce us for a moment to believe that the gloomy anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the Amendment are correct. Nor am I able to see any ground upon which the Powers of Europe are likely to object, Certainly those Powers that are favourable to Italy have no reason to object; and I do not think that any of the Powers who desire—whatever else may happen in Egypt—that Egypt should remain prosperous and secure would have any grounds or any wish which would lead them to object to the step the Government have taken. But, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman, will say that Europe shares the view which he takes that Egypt is absolutely secure behind the frontier of Wady Halfa, that practically she need not look beyond those limits—that it is not necessary for her to watch the movements in the Soudan, or take account of any recrudescence of disturbance, however formidable it may at first sight appear. That is a military view of the situation in which I think the right hon. Gentleman stands alone, or almost alone. I have had the opportunity of hearing many military authorities speak on the subject of Egypt, and never yet have I ever heard any military authority assert that Egypt was so insular—if I may use the term—or cut off from the forces upon her southern frontier, that she may regard with absolute indifference whatever goes on in the Soudan or the districts bordering on it. I dissent totally from the military view of the right hon. Gentleman, and necessarily, I differ from the conclusion he has so confidently based upon it. The third argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that, while this expedition would be perfectly innocuous, and in his opinion perfectly useless, even if it went as far as Dongola, Dongola could not, and was not intended to be its ultimate goal, but that the further southern limit of Dar Fur would have to be reached before the policy of the Government obtained its natural conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman drew a blood-curdling picture, which, if it were, true, would, no doubt, be a condemnation of our policy. He drew a picture of the Egyptian Army, officered by English officers, and having behind it the responsibilities, more or less, of this country, being drawn step by step into the southern districts until it was surrounded and overwhelmed by that great fighting force of the Mahdists, as Hicks Pasha's force was overwhelmed more than ten years ago. This nightmare of Dar Fur is entirely the creation of the right hon. Gentleman's own fears. I can assure him that in ordering the advance along the valley of the Nile we have no dream of extending our responsibilities down to Dar Fur. It has not entered as a determining factor into our policy. Certainly, if there was any chance of the evils which the right hon. Gentleman predicts becoming actualities in Egyptian history, no responsible Government of this country or of Egypt would ever enter into the policy of adventure which he so eloquently condemned. There remains the argument that this advance, whatever else it may do, will do nothing for Italy. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some geographical statistics as to the distances separating Dongola and Kassala, and he said:—

"How can you expect that military operations carried on at such a distance from the town you profess a desire to relieve can have the slightest influence on its fate?"

He added, that long before these rumours of an advance would have reached the troops before Kassala, the fate of Kassala would be decided. Here, again, I am compelled to differ from the right hon. Gentleman on matters of fact. I believe that the rumour of our advance will spread with lightning rapidity through all the regions governed and controlled by the Mahdists. Experience has shown that they are by no means callous to any movement, on the side of Egypt, and I believe it will be known at Kassala within a very brief space of time that a forward movement is being made, even at many hundred miles distance, in the valley of the Nile. It constantly happens in military operations that if you want to press upon one part of the enemy's position, you ought not to direct your military operations there, but from some other part, which will require him or induce him to divide his forces, to detach his troops, and to make efforts in other directions than those in which he would otherwise be disposed to do. If we can attach confidence to the opinion of our military advisers, as I am convinced we can, there is no better method of producing a diversion in favour of the Italian forces now beleagured in Kassala than the forward movement we are now discussing. [''Hear, hear!"] If that be the case against us I ask, Are we not amply justified in the steps we have taken? ['' Hear, hear!"] We do not see any great risks either for Egypt or for England. We do not believe that the burden thrown on the military or financial resources of Egypt will be of the overwhelming character suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition. We do think that it is not a loss, but a gain to civilisation, that Egyptian influence should be extended southwards in the way we propose; and we do think that it is not a loss but a gain both to civilisation and to Europe that some relief should be given, if possible, to the sorely-pressed forces of Italy, now fighting for their lives far to the eastward of the districts to which we propose to advance. [''Hear, hear!"] These seem to us to be adequate reasons for the by no means adventurous and quixotic policy which we have adopted, and we trust that the House will support us in the course of action, we have taken. [Ministerial cheers.]

I think we find ourselves in a very embarrassing situation. We are, speaking on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. We are, therefore, debarred compulsorily from entering in detail upon the subject we are discussing. We are also, I am sorry to say, embarrassed by the language used by my hon. Friend who moved the Adjournment of the House. If he had seriously at heart any desire to prevent the movement which he denounced, surely he might have resorted to other methods than those of stirring up some of the most bitter Party feelings, and of relying upon arguments in which he himself can have no confidence. I desire, in the few remarks I intend to make, to speak as one disconnected from Party, and to put before the House for its consideration what the rule is that should govern us in examining the attitude of the Government. I think we are in a situation that justifies all the anxiety of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. [Opposition cheers.] I think we may consider this subject quite apart from the question of the occupation of Egypt to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. It does not depend upon that occupation. Take it upon either of two hypotheses—either as a purely Egyptian question or as a question to be considered by us as the sole masters of Egypt now and for ever. On whichever line you approach the subject, if the movement means an attempt to resume the conquest of the Soudan, it must be condemned immediately. [Opposition cheers.] Let us suppose that Egypt itself is making this movement. Is there anyone on the Government Bench who would not condemn the folly of Egypt's making such an attempt? Surely they must themselves know that the situation of Egypt in its present frontier is a situation of extreme strength. The Leader of the House dissented from the view of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. But it struck me, having in view the two speeches made, that the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean spoke with more assurance, with more knowledge, and with more confidence. [Opposition cheers.] I happened to be in Assuan at the end of last year; I had some opportunity of seeing the forces there; and I had some conversation with the Governor and with the military men there. They were rather wishing to have the opportunity of making a punitive expedition into the Soudan to punish a raid which had happened a little while before; and they were ready to admit that, if they started on that expedition, they might find themselves, in the interests of the friendly tribes, remaining in the place to which they extended their operations. But they never said that the frontier which they had was not a frontier of extreme strength. ["Hear, hear!"] Surely its strength is tested by experience. We had something like this Debate 11 years ago; and at the bottom of the Debate then raised lay this question—Whether the barrier from this Assuan to Wady Halfa was not a complete protection against the incursions of the Mahdi, who was then in the height of his power. Well, since then what attempts have been made to break through that barrier, and with what success have they been made? The House knows how the Mahdists started from the Soudan in order to enter into Egypt, and how only a miserable remnant of them, weakened and exhausted, succeeded in reaching the comparatively small force that met and defeated them. And now you have the Khalifa and not the Mahdi, and with weakened power; and there is really no reason whatever for apprehension, apart from what has recently happened, that any hostile attack will be made on the Egyptian frontier. [Cheers.] Why, we have before us the words of Lord Cromer himself, written on February 6th last. He told us that there may be a raid or two in the future, but that the forces of the Khalifa have maintained a strictly defensive position. [Cheers.] Apart from what happened to the Italians, would there be any kind of suggestion why the Egyptian Government itself, if master of its own destinies, should risk its strength and resources upon an attempt to reconquer the Soudan? [Cheers.] But, then, we are told that there is this matter of the failure of Italy; and I confess that, though I disapprove of Italy's attempt to make a lodgment in Abyssinia, I am one of those who sympathise with Italy in her recent disaster. But is there any reason to apprehend that out of that disaster we shall have a recrudescence of attacks by the Mahdi forces directed against Egypt? If such attacks were made we could meet them at the moment; but there is no reason for expecting them; and, therefore, if Egypt alone were concerned, Egypt would be unwise to attempt such action as the Government, on the part of Egypt, are now proposing. It is because we are in Egypt that this matter can be undertaken at all; and, therefore, if the expedition goes it is you that go, not Egypt. [Loud Opposition cheers.] If the labour of defending the advance arises, it will be yours and not Egypt's. Is such a thing to be regarded with complacency—that we should plunge into the wilderness and cross 300 miles of country which yields nothing but distress to the forces which traverse it, in order to encounter continued opposition on the other side of the desert barrier? [Cheers.] From a strategical point of view, it would be unwise to leave Wady Halfa to cross that barrier. From the point of view of England occupying Egypt, and remaining there without question or let or hindrance, the engagement on our part to enter upon the reconquest of the Soudan would be a blunder. [''Hear, hear!"] Let it be only Khartoum and the Soudan which are aimed at, and I denounce that policy, if it be entertained, as fatal in the interests of Egypt, and in our own interests if we are associated with Egypt. [Cheers.] ''Oh, but we are going to relieve the Italians," it is said. "We can relieve the strain on Kassala." The Leader of the House said, with great truth, that the rumour of our advance would spread rapidly to Kassala. Yes, Sir, but the people who are attacking Kassala will know the conditions and possibilities of our advance also. They may hear of our advance, but what fear will it excite in their minds? They will hear that we are moving some 800 or 900 miles away, on the other side of the desert, and that we do not even propose to come to them. And if we did, we could not arrive for some months. It is at, the beginning of the hot season that this movement is proposed; and the natural result would be that the efforts of the besiegers of Kassala would relax, and that they would very kindly come to meet you—could anything more ludicrous be supposed?—[cheers]—but that they would simply make the best of their time before you arrived. If you want to relieve Kassala, send your troops down the Red Sea. That would be a bad policy, but you might achieve something. But the hypothesis is that Kassala is on the point of being taken, and that the besiegers are going to relax their efforts because you are going to send a few thousand men a quarter of the way to Dongola. The thing is incredible. [Opposition cheers.] If you proceed in an attempt to get back the Soudan, it is your military power and it is your honour that will be pledged. [Cheers.] We have had, during the last few weeks, very unpleasant revelations of the view taken of us in other countries, and of the possibilities of collisions with other Powers. If any such danger existed of war with a European Power, where would be the prudence and the policy of having our military forces engaged in Egypt in an attempt to reconquer the Soudan? [Cheers.] You are throwing away all your resources; you are tying up your best forces in an absurd and fruitless attempt to get back that which is valueless if you succeed in getting it—[cheers]—and you expose yourself to all the weakness of that situation. We are weak now through our position in Egypt, and if we add to that weakness by engaging in this exploit, if we lock up our troops in the Soudan, our weakness will be such that I do not know to what we should not expose ourselves. National humiliations far beyond anything we have been accustomed to suggest might possibly occur when we found ourselves attacked by powerful neighbours while we were engaged in this business at the other end of the Mediterranean. The Leader of the House attenuated the importance of this expedition. There I gladly listened to him. I hope it means nothing but going back again. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] If that could be secured, then this short Debate would not be without importance. But I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that this is a matter on which they will find a great diversity of opinion among their most faithful followers. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Not, perhaps, in this House; but this House, after all, is not absolutely identical with the whole force and following of the Government in this country. Hon. Members on this side, no doubt, represent the majoirity of the constituencies; but let them beware lest they lose the support of an important section of the constituencies. Looking at this question from a totally different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Northampton, dissociating myself entirely from the attempt to make political capital out of this in any way, dissociating the question from any question as to whether we are bound to remain in or to go out of Egypt, I could not sit silent, but was bound to rise and express the grave apprehension which filled me in contemplating the future, when this policy which has been adumbrated I before us comes to be seen in what, I believe, are its true proportions. [Opposition cheers.]

said, that the right hon. Member for Bodmin had deprecated the extreme idea of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that the real objective of the expedition was Dar Fur. But the right hon. Gentleman had reached an equally extravagant conclusion in imagining that this small expedition would be likely to lead to British troops being locked up when most required by the occasion of some serious European complication. Any one who had paid attention to Egyptian affairs must be aware that the defence of the limited frontier of Egypt was a matter of considerable difficulty. It was no light matter that Egypt, which was under the protection of Great Britain, and whose military forces were disposed of by this country, should have continually to submit to raids from barbarous Powers in the Soudan; that the villages in the immediate neighbourhood of the Egyptian frontier should be constantly invaded and plundered. It was well known that for years past, whenever the dates had been gathered and stored, these plundering bands had swooped down upon the poor people and cleared them out of almost the whole of their possessions. It had long been known that a further slight advance could not be long delayed. What was there in the announcement of Her Majesty's Government to lead to the extravagant conclusions and dismal prophesyings of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Member for Bodmin? Surely there was in the simple explanation of Her Majesty's Government ample justification for the action which had been determined upon. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Khalifa's broken power, but the views so expressed could not be put in competition with the opinions of Lord Cromer, who had so worthily represented England in Egypt for so many years, and who possessed such unrivalled means of judging the circumstances of the case. When Her Majesty's Government stated on their responsibility, and with all the information in their possession, that there was real danger of a hostile attack on the Egyptian frontier, and deliberately resolved—he was sure with reluctance considering the season of the year—to authorise an advance, the House, he was certain, would not assume the responsibility of hindering their action. He did not attach the slightest weight to such a speech as that which had been delivered by the right hon. Member for Northampton. It was not a serious speech. He was only sorry that any Member of the House should stand up in his place to advocate the cause of the enemies of England. On the other hand, such a speech as that made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean was descrying of the utmost attention and respect. The right hon. Gentleman had always been against an advance in Africa, and always for withdrawing from a position which, in his opinion, we never ought to have occupied. He was sorry we had drifted into that position, but having before all the world undertaken and discharged with singular success the responsibilities which in 1882 we took up, we were bound to incur some risk, and, if necessary, make some sacrifices to fulfil the mission which we then assumed. He rose, however, chiefly to ask whether any good would be gained by the prolongation of the Debate. The question could not be discussed piecemeal with any advantage. If the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to be seriously challenged, it should be done with full deliberation, and not on some sudden suggestion sprung on the House with no seriousness, which could have no possible result except to lead to an idea in Europe which he strongly deprecated, that we were at all divided in this matter.

uttered an emphatic protest against this demand on, the part of the Government. If they carried forward this expedition it would be against the solid mass of opinion of the Nationalists of Ireland. Some gentlemen had expressed great sympathy with Italy in the disaster which had overtaken them. He did not hesitate to say that Irishmen had not the slightest sympathy with Italy, because there never was a more flagrant or outrageous attack on freedom and liberty than the whole expedition to Abyssinia. How was it that the other members of the Triple Alliance did not come to the rescue of Italy? If troops were to be dispatched to the relief of Italy they might have been Austrian or German troops, for unless this was a prelude to an announcement that this country was about to join the Triple Alliance, it was impossible to understand why any risk should be run by this country in the interests of Italy. The real object, of all these expeditions was simply to seize rich and fertile lands, and this object was sought to be concealed under a cloak of hypocrisy. If they wanted to restore order, to rescue people from tyrannical rulers, why did they not risk blood and treasure in an attempt to do something for the persecuted people of Armenia? At the same time he admitted that by Irishmen the Government's policy was not altogether regretted, for nothing was more certain than that this policy steadily pursued would lead this country into disasters as great as that which had overtaken the Italians. Their discomfiture would be hailed with satisfaction by the great bulk of the Irish people. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but he remembered such a time when at every public gathering in Ireland cheers were raised for the enemies of England. [Laughter.]

said, the hon. Gentleman was not adhering to the Question which was raised on the Motion for adjournment.

said, as he stated, he did not intend to go into the Question fully. That, he hoped, would be done by every Irish representative on Friday next. Every opportunity that was given to him, at least, would be availed of by him to show that a large and important section of the people, inhabitants of these islands, were completely against this policy. If the Government continued their present policy and disaster overtook them, the Irish people would rejoice, and their sympathy would be upon the side of those people who, in the estimation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, were uncivilised because they were not English, but who were, in reality, more civilised than hon. Gentlemen themselves.

desired to put two questions to the First Lord of the Treasury. The first was whether it would be consistent with the interests of the public service to lay before the House any evidence the Government might have of the rumours as to probable approaches to the Wells of Murad referred to by the Under Secretary, and which induced the Government to enter upon this policy. The Opposition understood there were two foundations for the advance—the one to ward off the menace to Egypt, and the other to effect a diversion in the interest of Italy, and, therefore, his second Question was whether the whole of the expense of the advance was to be borne by Egypt?

said the right hon. Gentleman had not quite accurately apprehended the position of the Government, because he had distinguished the two grounds, which were real grounds, and led the House to believe they were absolutely distinct. They were, on the contrary, mutually interconnected. It was because of the menace to Egypt that it was important this diversion should take place. With regard to the rumours which had reached them, he would consult the Under Secretary as to whether the telegrams which his hon. Friend had in mind could be read to the House tomorrow at Question time; he imagined there would be no difficulty in the matter.

inquired whether, on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman would say whether the action of the Government was in consequence of any communication from the Italian Government?

said, any Question of that kind, if put on the Paper, would, probably, receive an answer on or before Friday.

thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make an explanation with regard to the Motion. It went considerably further than the Motion of previous years. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman included the Report of the Vote on Account in this Motion.

said, it would be as well that the House should understand exactly what was intended by the Motion. He would like to know whether the so-called Twelve o'clock Rule was to be frequently suspended. This Rule was very convenient and highly popular with Members, and proceedings carried on during the small hours did not afford their constituents and the public those opportunities of taking cognisance of their Debates, which he thought were highly appreciated throughout the country. There had been several suspensions of the Rule during the present Session. He was not sure that the first experience of the suspension of the Rule was such as to encourage the House in any very frequent repetition of that process. Quantity of work was not always in keeping, so far as quality was concerned, with what they desired to obtain, and the very prolonged proceedings in connection with the new Sessional Orders were rather occasions which they would desire to avoid. Another occasion on which the Rule was suspended was in connection with the all-night sitting on Committee of Supply last week. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give an assurance that, except in times of financial stress, it was not the intention to take Committee of Supply after Twelve o'clock.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government did not like all-night sittings or late sittings any more than he did. The predetermination of having an all-night sitting was never made by the Government, but by those over whom the Government, unfortunately, had no coercive influence. It was the intention of the Government, as far as possible, to keep discussions on Supply within the limits of the Twelve o'clock Rule. This Motion applied only to Report of Supply, and was merely a repetition of the Sessional Order which had every Session for the last few years been passed without debate or dissent. There was an addition which he hoped the House would not think militated against the utility of the Rule. It was that the formal stages of the Money Committee in the case of certain Bills should be capable of being taken after 12 o'clock. These stages need not and ought not to take any length of time, and it would be convenient for the general progress of business if the Rule dealing with ordinary Report of Supply dealt also with the Report of these Committees.

said, the First Lord of the Treasury need not think that it was private Members who always desired all-night sittings. He did not think anybody desired them; but, with regard to that all-night sitting last week, it was entirely the fault of the Government in putting down too much business for one night. Any man who looked through the proceedings of that night would see that no undue discussion took place on any item. On the contrary, numerous sums of money were voted without any discussion at all. The discussion which did take place was very moderate considering the nature of the subjects. He should constantly vote against any extension of the Rules having for its object the discussion of any of the stages of Supply after 12 o'clock.

said, that when this proposal was introduced by the late Government it was strongly opposed by several Members of the present Government, who alleged that it interfered with the freedom of Debate. He sincerely hoped they would take a discussion on the Motion.

thought the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House now regretted the course he took last year on the very same Motion. It was then proposed, not merely as a Sessional but as a Standing Order, and if the right hon. Gentleman had had a little more prescience it would have become a Standing Order. It was a Motion which was always made from the other side of the House, and if there was a Division he should support the Government.

also commented on the fact that a similar Motion last year was strongly resisted by several Gentlemen on the Government Bench. Now, however, they proposed to apply the Resolution, not only to Supply, but to Bills. If the Government carried out their present policy they would be called upon to bring in all the Bills. In future hon. Members would have to do their work, not on the Second Reading, but on the Committee stage. He was glad that they were further trenching on the Twelve o'clock Rule.

Before I proceed to make any comments on the details of the Estimates submitted, I should like to dwell for a few moments on the total Vote for which we ask the House. The amount is £18,056,000, a sum large indeed, since it is more than that for which we have hitherto obtained the finest Navy in the world, and which comes apparently within appreciable nearness of the expenditure of Foreign Powers who maintain three or four times the number of troops that we do. It has been pointed out over and over again in this House that for £28,000,000 Germany maintains 21½ army corps and eight cavalry divisions; for £26,000,000 France maintains 20 army corps and seven cavalry divisions; for £31,000,000 Russia maintains 22 army corps and 22 cavalry divisions. Our position is wholly different, and our forces are organised for home and colonial defence on a different system. It is none the less a common statement by outsiders that enough money is voted, if only it were properly spent, that the introduction of a practical system would introduce enormous economies, and that, while we are spending £18,000,000, we can barely put two army corps into the field. I wish, in introducing these Estimates, to bring out the facts to justify in some degree the totals, and thus, so far as different circumstances admit, to supply material for a comparison with Foreign Powers. I have had, for this purpose, the Votes so redistributed as to show at a glance what the Army costs us as mobilised for war, and the Paper is now obtainable in the Vote Office. I trust that, wearisome though figures are, these may not be found uninteresting. From them you can see at a glance that, at an annual cost of £6,620,000 during peace, we put into the field for home defence three army corps and four cavalry brigades, composed of 112,000 Regulars and Army Reservists. This includes pay, good-conduct pay, deferred pay, retired pay and pensions, barracks, fuel, transport, clothing, equipment, rifles, ammunition, forage, medical attendance, chaplains, schools, libraries—in fact, every species of expense attaching to these troops. The total amount for men and officers together thus averages under £59 a head. And be it remembered that in turning out three army corps thus constituted, we do not include a single man under one year's service, and we shall have less Army Reserve men in our ranks than any nation in Europe on mobilisation. Our garrisons in the fortresses abroad, the colonies, and in Egypt, amounting to 38,400 men, cost us annually £3,254,000 or £84 15s. per man for every expense, all being on the full-pay list. We shall have on mobilisation in defensive positions at home and in garrisons 333,000 men, costing £3,603,000, or, on the average, £11 per man for every expense. Behind these again we have 90,000 men, being the staff at the depôts, men of under one year's service, and unallotted troops, costing £3,211,000. Our expenditure on warlike stores of all descriptions is £1,420,000, which includes ammunition for and maintenance of big and small guns at home and all over the world. We spend £432,000 on fortifications, works, and buildings other than barracks. The War Office costs for Military Department, £142,800; Civilian Department, £123,000; non-effective, £51,300; total, £317,100—an expense which I am glad to say is decreasing on the Civil side by a reduction in the more expensive parts of the clerical establishment; and we thus reach our net total of £18,000,000. Of this total it will be noticed that the three army corps absorb about £6,600,000, or one-third, and even this is an excessive estimate, seeing that we have some 80,000 pensioners, and are paying all the pensions for long service, while maintaining a reserve of 80,000 men due entirely to short service. The above, then, are the figures on which I shall rely in entering on the dangerous ground of comparison with Foreign Powers. In doing so, let me be clearly understood at the outset to say, we can only hope to make a relative comparison. Germany has probably the most economical army in the world. ["Hear, hear!"] Are we, in relation to Germany, extravagant on items which we can reduce? You cannot run a voluntary army on the same lines as a conscript army. [''Hear, hear!"] If I select only one item—that of the army corps—for comparison, it is because you cannot compare our expenditure of £3,000,000 on forces in the colonies with that of a country which has not to maintain garrisons in colonies. Let me, therefore, note, first, the main items of difference in order in insure a correct comparison. We pay our private soldier 1s. a day and £3 a year deferred pay, and every other rank in proportion. Germany pays 4⅛d. per day. We give a ration costing 5d.; Germany gives 3½d. We pay Army Reservists 6d. per day, or £720,000 a year; the German Army Reservist receives nothing. If paid 6d. a day, the German Budget of £28,000,000 would be raised to £48,000,000. With us, every officer and man, if he loses health or serves long enough, gets a pension. We pay pensions of £2,870,000, including all our war pensions. The German army pension list is £2,500,000 for an army many times the size. They paid £28,000,000 out of the war indemnity to the sufferers in the Franco-German War, and for 25 years have never had a man abroad or under fire. We provide our troops with attractive clothing made at current rate of wages; the German clothing is obtained at the lowest price consistent with durability. We are buying this year over £2,000,000 of stores in this country, where, fortunately, the conditions of labour give a better return to the workman than in any foreign land except the United States; and yet we are held in the total figures to a comparison with countries who can place most of their contracts at something like 25 per cent. reduction on the amount. But, above and beyond all this, with fortifications to build and maintain, ports and coaling stations to arm in all parts of the globe, and every modern requirement to introduce into our Army, we have taken but £12,000,000 in 25 years by way of loan, for permanent works outside the Annual Estimates; while Germany has spent out of the French War indemnity and loans which can be traced, no less than £66,000,000 in the equipment of fortresses and troops during the same period, and other nations have been similarly drawing on capital for similar purposes, leaving to the Annual Estimates the actual cost of maintaining and training the men. The actual figures of comparison between the forces mobilised as army corps in Great Britain and Germany work out as follows:—Our three army corps and four cavalry brigades cost £6,620,000. The personnel of the 21½ German army corps and eight cavalry divisions cost, taking their Estimates on the same principle as ours, £26,056,000, or an average of £1,210,000 per army corps. We thus arrive, as a starting-point of comparison, that British army corps cost £2,200,000 apiece, as against £1,210,000 for the German army. But any analysis of the German Estimates to bring out the actual cost of an army corps is almost impossible, not only because their estimates are most intricate, but because their paid staff includes the machinery for mobilising a much larger number of men than 21 army corps. But it is necessary to add that if you give the Germans serving on the active list alone pay, deferred pay, forage, and clothing at the English rates, you must add pay, etc., £8,819,000; rations, £1,757,000; forage, £300,000; clothing, £402,000. You thus add to their Estimates a sum of £11,278,000. The pay of Reservists would add a further £20,000,000. Their total would thus become nearly £57,500,000, while, if they gave pensions on the same scale as we do, they must add nearly £300,000 for each army corps. But oven then you will have added nothing for the extra number of officers we maintain, the moving of our troops, while German corps remain stationary, for more expensive barracks, for better hospitals, for the higher price of horses, and for all the items which add attraction to the soldier's life, but are not held to be necessary in a conscript army. The Committee will therefore see that it is not possible accurately to bridge over the difference between the £2,200,000 cost of the British army corps and the £1,200,000 apparent cost of the German army corps; but the figures mentioned above show that the main items of difference are found, namely, by what actually goes into the men's pockets, that we pay our private soldiers 3¼ times as much as Germany pays; 3½ times as much retired pay arid pensions, and that these items alone, with the difference on rations, represent £670,000 out of £1,000,000 of difference. I think the Committee will see that the margin on which economies can be made is reduced to exceedingly small dimensions. And be it remembered, if you have a military system like the German, which is so supremely economical, that, as General Brackenbury told us, some £2,000,000 are subscribed annually by the relatives of the men with the colours to eke out the ration given them, you find to some extent how it is possible, as is done at this moment in Germany, to keep 584,000 men with the colours at an average expense for men and officers, pay and pension, food and clothing, barracks and training, rifles and equipment together, after allowing for keep and purchase of horses, for less than 2s. 4d. a day apiece; and as we cannot hope, and should not desire to treat our Army on these terms, I cannot help hoping the above figures—which, much as we owe to the Intelligence and Finance Department, who have enabled me to bring them together, are of course approximate—may go some way to dispel the exaggerated views which prevail as to the extravagance of our military system. [''Hear, hear!"] The two material facts for the Committee to keep in mind are, first, that if this country required such an addition to its mobile force as to make it necessary to raise three more army corps, and if we could devise a means of getting the men, you can double your three army corps and have six army corps, not by doubling your Estimates, but by adding about £6,600,000, or one-third, to them, and yet retain over 400,000 men for home defence; and, secondly, that on the three army corps you place in the field at home, you pay for not adopting conscription about £3,000,000. What I have aimed at doing is to enable the country to appreciate, and the House to criticise the value we are getting for our money. ["Hear, hear!"] I am far from pretending that economies have been exhausted in the British Army. There is much that can be done in detail by a watchful care over every contract made and over every item of expenditure. We shall heartily welcome the assistance of the Committee to this end, though I am bound to say that since Parliament met I have had interviews with at least 100 hon. Members, who have suggested to me desirable items of increase, and no one has yet favoured me with any suggestion for a, reduction. [Laughter and ''Hear, hear!"] Looking to our expenditure for the future, and to the possibility of reductions, Lord Lansdowne attaches great importance to the principle initiated by Mr. Stanhope in 1888, that the administration of Army Funds should be in the hands of the military heads of the Army, and should be extended in the districts. No centralised and bureaucratic system can be economical. ["Hear, hear!"] I was sorry to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe speak the other night as if there was a certain suspicion between the military and civil side of the War Office. He must have been thinking of old days, when the great evil of War Office finance was the division between civil and military responsibility, which fortunately, has come to an end. Until recent years it was held to be the duty of the soldiers to spend and of the civilians to save. Until quite modern days the soldiers and civilians inhabited different buildings—the civilians in Pall Mall, the soldiers within easy distance of the Treasury in Whitehall. The idea that the functions of General Officers commanding districts had to do with the expense as well as with the discipline and health of the troops is of modern growth, but the Commander-in-Chief is quite prepared to hold this as part of their military duty; and as a step in the direction of interesting officers who have the practical working of the different commands in the same cause of economy, the Secretary of State proposes to delegate to them responsibility for expending money within certain limits. This reminds me of the amusing speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham, who detailed the correspondence he had had with the War Department on various small items, to which I could add many similar occurrences which have come to my knowledge and which prove, at all events, that the War Office is conducted on commercial principles. [Laughter.] We realise that the present procedure is troublesome and often costly, and we propose to give commanding officers responsibility in certain cases for allowing and disallowing small charges which have hitherto proved the source of voluminous and often irritatng correspondence. This will be a step towards what we hold to be the only sound system of Army finance—namely, to decentralise expenditure, and to give those who expend money the greatest incentive to save it. We believe that it is futile to place at the War Office highly-talented officers, such as those by whom we are now surrounded, unless we avail ourselves to the full of their abilities. I could give many instances to prove that the experiment commenced in 1888 has worked well. To mention one in the present year. The Quartermaster General, Sir Evelyn Wood, who controls the transport and supply Votes, has in the last two years produced an annual saving of £21,000 on not a very large Vote, by systematising the transport of stores, and if any man can steal a march on him he will have to get up very early in the morning to do it. ["Hear, hear!"] I trust I have not wearied the Committee with these general considerations, but this is the only and the right moment for attempting a comprehensive view of our position. Taking the past year, I need not detain the House long. As regards the personnel of the troops, the Adjutant General is well satisfied with the recruits raised, and desertions both from the line and militia have fallen to the lowest point reached since the institution of short service. [''Hear, hear!"] An experiment was made in mobilisation in the home district, and about 1,500 Reservists came up, 94 per cent. of whom were found medically fit. [''Hear, hear!"] The military authorities were exceedingly satisfied with the quality of the registered horses, of which we have now 14,000 ready at a moment's call. The militia present at training has remained at the strength of recent years. In only two particulars has there been a difficulty in keeping the forces up to strength—namely, in the Army Medical Department and in the officering of the Volunteers. With regard to the latter, the efforts which we propose to make have already been explained to the House, and have been, I may say, favourably received, and I do not propose to touch upon it now. The Army Medical Department is now short of its establishment by 17 officers, and Lord Lansdowne has given very serious consideration to the causes which have led to a falling-off in candidates for this hitherto popular service. In considering the question Lord Lansdowne has had the advantage of receiving two deputations, which have laid the views of the Service fully before him. We have endeavoured to trace this falling-off to its true cause, and among the causes alleged to explain the apparent unpopularity of the Service, I may mention the following:—(1) The social status of its members as compared with that of combatant officers; (2) the manner in which the entrance examinations are conducted and the examiners selected; (3) the arrangements for tours of foreign service; (4) the smallness of the opportunities offered for special study and original research as compared with those open to practitioners in civil life; (5) the increasing strictness of the entrance examination; (6) the prolongation of the curriculum of medical students to five years. It is evident that, where so many explanations are suggested, we cannot arrive at the real causes of the falling off in candidates without careful study, and Lord Lansdowne cannot give a hasty decision. But he fully recognises the importance of securing the full confidence of the profession. We hope to be able to deal with some, at all events, of the points which have been brought to our attention. ["Hear, hear!"] Turning to the question of material, I have already put before the House the efforts made to bring our artillery up to full strength, and we have taken £137,200 in the Estimates of next year, contrasting with £68,900 taken in the Estimates last year, to complete the process, so that in a few months we may count on 81 guns with their full equipment in excess of the establishment of 12 months ago. The whole of the militia have now been armed with the magazine rifle, and there is, in addition, the full reserve of arms authorised by the Army Board for the line, reserve, and militia. We propose at once to begin the issue of the magazine rifle to the Volunteers, and to push it on as rapidly as is consistent with maintaining a proper reserve, so that weapons carrying the same ammunition may be in the hands of the whole of our forces. ["Hear, hear!"] And this brings me, naturally, to the question of cordite, and the supply of small-arm ammunition, which has proved a matter of more than passing interest to many Members of the House. As regards the keeping properties of cordite, the Inspector General of Ordnance assures us that, as a result of a long series of experiments, the powder has proved satisfactory in every respect. It has given excellent shooting results, its keeping qualities have been good in hot, dry climates, and the ballistics have not been appreciably affected by excessive temperature. In dealing with small arm ammunition, I will put the facts before the House in the fewest possible words. In September last we told Parliament that our policy was to provide the equipment of ammunition laid down in the regulations for every rifle and carbine in the hands of the troops. We estimated that to do this, without providing a single round of reserve, we required a Vote of £70,000 before the close of the financial year, and that sum we obtained by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons. I have now to state how far we have been able to fulfil these promises. The trade firms on whom the War Office counted in April last to supply 10,000,000 rounds in the 12 months, have scarcely completed 3,000,000 rounds, and the factories have had to work hard to make up the deficit. They have, mainly owing to the expedient adopted by the Financial Secretary of obtaining a large number of components from other trade firms to be made up in the factories, succeeded in maintaining an output for many weeks of 2,000,000 rounds per week. By dint of this the factories have, beyond their own work, gone some distance to make up for the deficiencies of the trade. On September 30th last we were deficient by the equipment of nearly 200,000 men, or 60,000,000 rounds. Of these we shall have made up 54,000,000 by March 31st, and from April 1st (when the shooting season begins), instead of, as last year, making only about 1,000,000 rounds a week and firing off 1,500,000 (thus losing ground throughout the first six months), we shall be firing off 1,500,000 and making 2,000,000. The sum included in the Estimates will enable us to maintain the equipment and create a central reserve of 25,000,000 rounds, and I trust it will be felt that we have redeemed our promise and dealt frankly and fairly by the House. [Cheers.] Before I leave the past year I desire to touch briefly on the reorganisation of the War Office which has taken place. The Papers laid upon the Table of the House have placed hon. Members in full possession, not only of the main scheme of the new organisation, but of the system of office procedure which has been adopted. The arrangements made during the autumn were laid down after a thorough discussion of the plans suggested by rival schools of thought, by one of which it was desired to make a supreme Commander-in-Chief, and by the other a Council of equal Heads of Departments. We have all along held the view that amongst the high military officers at Army headquarters, one should be clearly recognised as the principal adviser of the Secretary of State. [Cheers.] The adoption of this view is, however, in our belief, consistent with the recognition of the full responsibility of the heads of the Military Departments, and such responsibility has been given to them. The Heads of those Departments are no longer required to approach the Secretary of State through the Commander-in-Chief or the Adjutant General acting for him, but direct. As regards the working of the new system, we have found great advantage from the institution of the Army Board, and from the more frequent meetings of the War Office Council, which had almost fallen into disuse. Lord Lans- downe has repeatedly referred questions of purely military import for the decision of the five officers who constitute the Army Board—such, for instance, as the supply of small arms, reserves of ammunition, the artillery, and other questions of great importance—and he has thus obtained what may be reckoned the considered advice of five picked officers in the Army in a concrete form. Questions of policy have also been frequently discussed at the War Office Council, over which the Secretary of State himself presides, and I may say generally that the new system has been found in these respects expeditious and effective, and will afford to our successors a useful record of opinions given, and of decisions made upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] Turning from the past year to the programme for the coming year, the first place must be given to the policy revived by Lord Lansdowne of holding manœuvres on an extended scale. The military authorities consider the exercising of large forces together as absolutely essential to the proper training of the troops. The cost is estimated in all at about £125,000, and we believe that, if it is worth the while of the House of Commons to vote £18,000,000 to procure troops, weapons and armaments of the best quality, it is the truest economy to spend a sum not amounting to 1 per cent. in a training which every other nation finds necessary for its field army, and the absence of which was so severely felt and is so constantly recalled by all who took part in the Crimean War. In connection with this subject I would also mention the attention which is being given to the question of the cavalry, to which our attention was called by the gallant Member for St. Pancras. A considerable number of our cavalry regiments have in past years been scattered at out-of-the-way stations without proper exercising-grounds, and without any opportunity of practising brigade drills or combined movements. The organisation of the cavalry is engaging the attention of the authorities but I am not in a position to make any statement upon it at present, as anything which it may be found desirable to do could only be done after careful deliberation and with full regard to the sentiment of the force. One thing, however, we propose to do, and that is, by the purchase of rights, or by purchase out and out, to provide ground upon which cavalry can manœuvre in force [''Hear, hear!"], and as this is a service of a permanent character which cannot be readily provided for in Estimates, we propose to ask for the money in the form of a loan. I alluded just now to the small proportion of permanent works in this country which have been carried out by capital expenditure, but Parliament has in recent years recognised that there are certain works which can be most efficiently and economically carried out by a scheme involving money spread over a period of years. In 1888 we obtained a loan of £2,600,000 for national defence, and in 1890 a loan of £4,100,000 for the construction of barracks. Neither of these loans was assumed to be complete or to do more than meet immediately pressing demands. With regard to the defence loan Mr. Stanhope said:—

"It will be fully understood that the scheme now submitted does not pretend to be an exhaustive one or to complete all the defences which the military authorities think necessary and desire to see carried out. What it does aim at is to carry out in the next three years, or, in other words, as quickly as possible, all the most urgent of these defences."

A great deal has, however, been done under the loan. The military ports and coaling stations at home and abroad have been for the first time properly defended and armed with modern artillery, and some of our colonial barracks were reconstructed and storehouses were built by which we were able to decentralise stores hitherto harboured at Woolwich. If more is required to be done now, it is because additional protected harbours are required for the fleet, and modern armament has greatly developed. As regards the barrack loan of £4,100,000, the facts are as follows:—A sum of £11,000,000 was asked for; the Army and Navy Estimates Committee, which sat under Lord Randolph Churchill's presidency, vouched for the necessity of the service, and £4,100,000 was granted as the sum which would meet the most pressing services and those most likely to be carried through in five years. During this period Aldershot has practically been rebuilt, and very large sums have been spent at the Curragh, Shorncliffe, and in Dublin. Over £200,000 has been laid out in married soldiers' quarters, greatly to the comfort of the class of the Army which perhaps feels military life the most hardly [''Hear, hear!"], and great improvement has been made in the sanitary condition of the barracks. The returns show that at Aldershot alone the admissions to hospital per 1,000 have fallen from 886 to 605 in four years, and in the United Kingdom from 810 to 055, a result which I think it is fair to cite as due largely to the improved barracks, and which I wish Mr. Stanhope, who had so earnestly at heart the good of the private soldier, could have lived to see. Much, however, still remains to be done. The system of building wooden huts to last 20 years, cheap and expeditious though it was, reacts on the soldier when those huts have lasted 30 or 40 years; and it is now necessary to replace those which have grown out of date by permanent buildings, and to complete the various camps. This is not the time to enter into detail, but out of the loan which will be proposed we hope to commence this year the new defence works to which I have referred, to continue the barrack programme, and to treat for the training-ground for cavalry.

A Bill will be introduced for the loans? Can the hon. Gentleman state the amount?

I cannot state the amount, because some of the services have not been absolutely settled, but the loan will certainly be a subject for a Bill. One more difficulty, in which this House is much interested, remains to be noticed. The increased range of the rifle, almost keeping pace as it does with the increase of population, has rendered a great number of ranges, especially those used by the Volunteers, unsafe for practice with the full charge. The latest calculations show that of these ranges in three classes, 300 are safe, 150 can be made safe, about 650 are unsafe, making a total of 1,100 ranges. The problem of how this most essential part of regular militia and volunteer training can be carried on has been before the War Office for some years. In 1892, Parliament assisted the Volunteers, as far as the financial difficulty is concerned, by sanctioning the lending of public money to purchase ranges, and this has been to some extent utilised. But we must face the fact that there are parts of this country in which it is impossible in the immediate neighbourhood of each corps to obtain a range suitable for the new rifle, and it would be impossible for the Government to assume the burden of providing and equipping ranges for the benefit of individual volunteer corps. What, however, we propose to do is this. In certain districts and at recognised centres we propose to buy land and establish ranges for the use of the forces in that district. The general officer commanding the district will be charged with the administration of the ranges. It will be his duty to see that besides the shooting of the regulars and the militia, these ranges are made available at convenient times for all volunteer corps who cannot carry out their practice at the ranges they have hitherto used. It is by no means the wish of the War Office to close ranges easy of access to the corps. On the contrary, we rely on public spirit to provide them as heretofore where it is feasible. But in the last resort we recognise that the Government must render itself responsible for providing reasonable facilities towards efficiency. Where it is possible we hope to provide space for the holding of camps in connection with the range, so that the expense of travelling may be limited as far as possible. I trust I shall not be pressed as to the localities in which we propose to establish these ranges, for our experience is that nothing establishes such an El Dorado in a district as a proposal to purchase land by the Government. [Laughter.] Land, however barren and unlettable, becomes the most fruitful soil in the country, and crops multiply as if by the wand of a magician. [Laughter.] We shall, therefore, keep our own counsel, and only state generally that if the House will pass the Loan Bill the provision of ranges will become a prominent item in our programme. If I have left the question of mobilisation till last, it is not because there is any subject to which it stands second in importance. I spoke on Friday of the decentralisation of stores throughout the country. We propose to follow this up by a further measure, for which some credit is due to Mr. Fleetwood Wilson, the head of the Clothing Department, by which the 400 tons of clothing which would have been sent to districts at the time of mobilisation will be stored at the depôts. The military authorities have thus arranged that the Reservist will be armed, clothed, and equipped at the depôt. We have taken up the question of volunteer transport in a practical spirit, and care has also been devoted to the railway arrangements. I may also say that great progress has been made in the acquisition of defensive sites around London, and that the system of bringing our reserve forces in peace to train at the guns which they will have to use in war is now largely in force. These, then, are the main items of the programme on which we hope to enter this year. If it be objected that after a reorganisation of the Department we contemplate no revolutionary changes, my reply is that we do not aim at startling the public, but at benefiting the Army. Changes in organisation are only the scaffolding on which efficiency can be reared, and with an Army, of all bodies in the world, change for the sake of change is the thing most to be avoided. [Cheers.] We are endeavouring to build up on our established system of national defence, so that it may be as effective for Great Britain, even if it cannot be as symmetrical as that of Continental nations, from whom we can learn much, though we cannot imitate them. National defence in Great Britain has built itself up rather according as individual patriotism and occasional emergency has dictated, than on any recognised or concerted scheme of strategists and politicians. We cannot, like Continental nations, adapt the country to the Army; we hope to adapt the Army to the country. Military authorities tell us that we have taken considerable strides in preparedness in the last few years; we hope this year to take a long stride further in the same direction. In completing the rearmament of the troops, in providing training by manœuvres and ranges, in forwarding mobilisation, in building barracks and completing fortifications we may be doing nothing new; but we are at least adopting a standard which we may hope to attain, and below which it will not be easy in the future for this or any Ministry to fall. I know that much will remain to be done; the life of Ministries is short, but art, and especially the military art, is long. I have no doubt we shall hear to-night criticisms, and valuable criticisms on our scheme; we shall hear of many omissions, and possibly of some defects. But, whatever may be said or felt, I feel I may be allowed at least to claim that this overhaul of our defences, which is the work primarily of a Secretary of State and of a Commander-in-Chief, who have not between them been 12 months in office, is a genuine tribute to the un-intermittent and arduous labours of the last few months [cheers], and I trust that the Estimates we have formed upon them, justified by the heads of the Army, sanctioned by the Committee of Defence, and put forward on the responsibility of the Government, may obtain, as I submit they deserve, the favourable consideration and sanction of the House of Commons. [Cheers.]

said, the statement of the Under Secretary for War had been specially interesting because of the comparison he introduced between the cost of our Army and foreign armies. No doubt conscription largely entered into the consideration which governed that comparison, but the figures he had given went to show that it did not enter to that overwhelming extent some were inclined to think. When the present Government came into office there was a wide and searching discussion of the whole principles of Army administration, and two large questions were raised to which the Government turned their mediate attention—namely, War Office administration and Cabinet responsibility in connection with national defence. From the statement of the Under Secretary for War it appeared that War Office administration had been developed on the lines of the scheme laid before the House last August. But he himself was far from satisfied with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility in the form it had assumed, and they did not see in the Army or Navy Estimates any evidence that up to the present time the matter had been thoroughly considered. It was true that we had a new Commander-in-Chief, that the Government had not been in office long, and that the Cabinet Committee on Defence had not long been constituted, and that it would be a mistake to change too suddenly the principles on which the defence of the country had been conducted in the past. But next year they would expect to see in the Army and Navy Estimates more evidence that the matter had been thoroughly considered. The expenditure of the country on land forces, taking England and India into account—for the problems of the British Army could not be effectively considered unless the Indian Army was taken into account—had been £36,250,000, and the Under Secretary said this was larger than the expenditure of any other Power. But for the £36,250,000—and the sum would be larger next year—we did not attain such results as, in the absence of conscription, we should look for here and in India Here we seemed to fall between two stools. We had confessedly no Army in this country at present that could hope successfully to resist invasion by armies organised on a Continental scale. We spent a good deal of money on our land forces without obtaining for the money we spent an Army which would enable us to resist invasion supposing our fleet failed. We failed not in the numbers of men but the organisation of those men. We failed in tactics, in artillery, and the practice of our Generals in command. He was glad to hear of the manœuvres, which in future were to take place in this country, and he hoped that under our new Commander-in-Chief there would be a development of our Army, in the sense of a modern Army, which we had hardly had up to the present time. The Undersecretary had spoken of the attempt that had been introduced to make a greater measure of decentralisation. Before it was possible to free the hands or brain of the Commander-in-Chief for the consideration of the larger problems of defence, it was necessary to keep him clear of irritating details to the consideration of which the Commander-in-Chief in this country was subjected as no other Commander-in-Chief was in other countries of the world. With regard to the reorganisation of the War Office, he should like in a word to defend what he had said as to its being made on the suggestions of August last. They were told that when a question affected more than one military department, the head of the department dealing with it would refer the papers to the other departments concerned, that the question might be considered in all its bearings. But all important questions would be referred to the Commander-in-Chief before it was submitted to the Secretary of State for War. That was an important point gained. The whole of paragraph 3 seemed to set up the Commander-in-Chief as the principal adviser of the Secretary of State; but there was one paragraph which appeared to tell in the opposite direction. On page 8 they were told that the Secretary of State would give the Army Board information as to the approximate amount within which the Estimates for the year were to be kept. That was wise, perhaps, from the point of view of economy; but there was this difficulty, that it was not shown upon what facts the Secretary of State was to form his opinion. The logical and the best position would seem to be that necessary demands of the services for the defence of the country should be first stated, and, when the military and naval advisers were agreed, their recommendations should be laid before the Secretary of State. But, as things stood, no one could tell what was the plan proposed to be pursued, and upon what preliminary facts the Secretary of State was to found his opinion, unless all this was provided for in the general arrangements of the Cabinet Committee. It might be as suggested, that cavalry officers had somewhat exaggerated the miserable condition to which some cavalry regiments were reduced; but at all events the majority of the regiments at home were short of horses as compared with the cavalry of every other country. Last year he said that what had been done in Belgium might be an example to us. In Belgium there were eight cavalry regiments in eight stations, chiefly manufacturing towns, and the regiments had been concentrated in two stations at two towns. He earnestly hoped that the Government might be working in this direction, and that the small detachments in manufacturing towns might be grouped together in places where they could get real cavalry training, as they did in India. He had still to complain that not only had we regiments with 225 horses on the establishment, but that those numbers included horses that would not be counted in any other army in the world. In other armies no horses were counted until they were six years old; but we counted horses of three, four, and five years; and, therefore, our deficiency was in fact, greater than it appeared to be. It was said there had been an increase of Artillery; but he did not believe there was anything the country would call an increase. There was a diminution in the time of Mr. Stanhope, and since that time there had not been what he would call an increase. There had been a decrease at home, although there had been an increase in India; and, on the whole, the force was not larger than it was some years ago. There had been no increase in horses or men; not until this year in guns; and that was not an increase without a corresponding addition of men and horses. With the Reserves the number of horses might be made up, but not the number of trained men; and we could not be said to increase our Artillery until we increased the number of trained men. The Yeomany Cavalry he feared lost a great deal by attempting to be what its training hardly fitted it for, whereas, if it were humbler in its aims it might be a useful force of mounted infantry for certain purposes. With regard to ammunition, the statement of the Under Secretary was partly reassuring, although it fell short of the expectations of last year as far as private firms were concerned. In respect of stores of ammunition and of rifles, we had been behind other Powers in the past, below the standard which was considered fair and proper by all. He was glad that the new rifle was about to be issued to the Volunteers, because it was specially demoralising to a Volunteer force to be armed with an inferior weapon, and it took the very best troops to fight with an inferior rifle, as the Germans once did. A great deal of mystery was often made in this country about military matters, such as the store of ammunition, and it was supposed to be disastrous to state facts which were probably known to the Powers. Last year in the famous Debate on cordite he was glad to hear the present Leader of the House declare that no harm could come of making a full statement and of taking the country into confidence. The position last year was that we had about 51 million rounds, whereas we use 24 millions in a year's practice. We had 51 million, rounds of cordite, and, as far as he could make out, there was an actual decrease between 1894 and 1895 in the total quantity of ammunition. The House had also been told that the private makers of ammunition furnished much less than the Government had anticipated, but that they were able to make up the stock to a sufficient amount. He would have preferred that all official mystery should have been set aside, and that the House should have got the real figures. There was really no secresy in this matter. All the details were known to the agents and representatives of foreign Powers, and were discussed amongst them, so that there was no necessity for official reticence. There was a further difficulty in the matter of cordite. He had never said a word against cordite ammunition, for this was a matter in which the opinion of experts must be accepted. But it was admitted that acetone, one of the products used in the manufacture of cordite, could not be up to the present time made in this country.

said, that acetone was not at present made in sufficient quantities in this country, but, potentially, there was nothing to be apprehensive about.

Is it not true that we have a sufficient quantity of acetone from different manufacturers to last for a considerable time?

That is so.

said he was glad to hear that; but he thought the fact that we could not make this product was a matter for anxiety.

No.