—who had an Amendment on the Paper to reject the Bill —said he rose on that occasion, at the request of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, to put before the House the strong objections which they entertained against this Bill and several other railway Bills in progress. There were five railway Bills before the House this Session in which powers were taken with regard to societies which were more or less compulsory either on all classes or on some classes, in the employ of the companies. As to this particular Rill, the society was at present compulsory only on the clerks or salaried officers; but under the Act of which this was an amending Bill, it was possible for the company to make their society compulsory on all their servants. He was informed however, that the Great Eastern Company were prepared to confine the operation of the present Bill to their salaried officers, and in those circumstances it would not be necessary for him to divide the House on this Bill at least. The different Bills had been referred to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and he understood that that official had already reported on three of them in very strong terms, and those reports would be placed before the committees on the Bills. That being the case and as, necessarily, therefore, the reports of the Chief Registrar would come before the House on the report stage of the Bills and receive full consideration, his objections to the Second Readings would fall to the ground. The Chief Registrar had officially raised against the clause objected to the very points he had been prepared himself to bring forward. In 1889 there were some clauses in a private Bill similar to the clause objected to in the present Bill, and it was then found that there was a difficulty as to the men being heard. The railway servants took the view that they ought not to be prejudicially affected by compulsory clauses of this kind without being heard, and the clauses referred to should be struck out or the servants be given a hearing before the Committee. He was aware of certain facts which had raised a doubt both in 1889 and in 1890, as to whether they could show that they were affected in a way which would give them a locus before the Committee. Even supposing individual servants were able to appear, it was a very invidious thing to throw it upon individual servants of a railway company. It would be far better that some of the societies which represented the railway servants should be allowed to appear on their behalf. In some societies the management was of a very despotic kind, and the fund was really in the hands of the railway company. He understood that as regarded the Bill now before them the Great Eastern had undertaken to insert words making it clear that this particular Bill only referred to salaried clerks and officers, and although it would still be the case that under their former powers they might include in their compulsory societies all the servants of the company, yet he felt he could not press, on the present Bill, an objection going to the original legislation already sanctioned by the House. Therefore, he should accept the proposal of the company. Perhaps it might be convenient if the Chairman of Committees would tell the House what was the usual course in regard to these Bills, as the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were very anxious both that the reports of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies should be fully brought before the Committee, and that, if possible, they should be given some representation before the Select Committee.

said that, as regarded the Bill now before the House, he was prepared to undertake that the reports to which the right hon. Baronet had referred should come before the Committee before whom the Bill went. If by any chance the Bill was unopposed then it would come before him, and he should most thoroughly go into the report from the Registrar General. He should also have to inform the House how that report had been dealt with, and therefore the House would be seized of whatever was done, whether by himself or by the Select Committee. The right hon. Baronet might therefore rest assured that the matter would come clearly before the Committee. He was informed by the Great Eastern Railway Company that in this Bill they never intended for a moment to go beyond the class of servants who were dealt with in the Act of 1878.

said that was so, but he was informed that the provisions of that Act, although they had been used only for salaried servants, might be extended so as to include all classes of servants.

said the company did not intend, in this Bill, to apply its provisions to any other class of servants but those to which the provisions of the Act of 1878 had been made applicable. They had undertaken, in the enacting part of clause 34, to insert words which would make it perfectly clear that the clause was only for salaried officers and salaried servants. The other question as regarded the locus standi of particular bodies did not arise on this matter.

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

said that, as the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to press his Motion, he did not know whether he ought to give an opinion. At all events he would give a very guarded one. The Instruction which stood in the name of the right hon. Baronet seemed to be a very wide one indeed, and rather a dangerous one for the House to accept without very full consideration. The House had drawn up in one of its Standing Orders a list of societies and associations to whom it was prepared to grant a locus standi in certain cases, and he thought it would require a very strong case indeed on the part of any society or association not included in that list if it wanted to obtain a locus. The right hon. Gentleman's Instruction might open the door to a great number of people who were not in any way interested in the company to appear on the company's Bill. He thought the Instruction was one which should be very jealously watched and carefully guarded before it was assented to by the House.

said he thought that House ought to be very careful in doing anything which would discourage such arrangements as these between employers and employed. There was no doubt that immense benefits had accrued where there had been arrangements of this kind for providing schemes of thrift for old age and sickness and so on, and he thought it was a pity that for fear of doing anything to offend, or to appear to offend, some of the extreme views of trade unionists, they would not be able in future to say distinctly that it certainly was beneficial that in these large corporations like railway companies there should be every facility given for enabling the workpeople and the employers to come together and make arrangements of this sort. He could conceive no better way of promoting harmony between the employers and employed than this. They must not let it go out of that House that, for political reasons, the House was afraid to let the companies do for their workpeople what they might do for their salaried officers. The plain political language of that was that the clerks were a small and insignificant political body, and that the workpeople were a large one, but he held that what was good for one was good for the other.

said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to have missed the whole point of those who had raised the question on that side of the House. There was no objection to these benefit societies, but the whole point was whether they were going to give the directors of the company power to make rules and regulations, and to manipulate these funds as they thought proper, without consulting the workpeople who contributed probably two-thirds of the money. That was a proceeding which, he said, should not be encouraged by that House. All that was asked was that the men should have the same voice in the control and administration of the funds as was proposed to be given to the directors.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Bill for the exclusion of the goods made in the prisons of other countries promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and if he will take care to press it forward sufficiently early in the Session to avoid its being shelved for want of time, having regard to the refusal of Foreign Governments to enter into an agreement for the non-exportation of such goods?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given. We shall be very glad to introduce the Bill as soon as the condition of public business offers a prospect of our being able to proceed with it.

I beg to give notice that, to make sure, I will to-morrow ask leave to introduce a Bill myself.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has come to any decision on the subject of the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the mail packet service to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and if he could conveniently communicate same at an early date to the House?

Upon consideration of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee referred to by the hon. Member, it has been decided to place a sum of £5,450 on the West Highlands and Islands (Public Works) Vote for the purpose of subsidising mail steamers on the West Coast of Scotland, and £3,225 for the Orkney and Shetland services. The arrangements consequent on the reduction of this Vote will not come into operation until the 1st of October next, and, as they still form the subject of consideration, I am not in a position to state them in detail.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the urgent need, as disclosed by the Report of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation of 1884, of harbour accommodation available at all tides on the North Cornish and North Devon coasts for fishing and local trading purposes, and to the impossibility of providing such accommodation entirely from local sources, if he is not prepared to undertake the larger schemes recommended by the Committee, he will favourably consider this special case?

It has been the policy of successive Governments not to undertake to construct or to assist by grants commercial and fishing harbour works in England. As the hon. Member is aware, loans can be obtained from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under certain conditions. However, if any special circumstances are brought under my notice they will receive my careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the unanimous recommendation of the Welsh Land Commissioners that portions of their Report should be translated into Welsh and published officially in that language; whether he has considered the suggestion of the Commissioners that the determination of the parts of the Report which it is most desirable to translate into Welsh should be left to a Committee of the Commission acting in conjunction with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and whether, in view of the fact that without such a translation the Report cannot reach a large proportion of the Welsh population specially interested in it, he will take the necessary steps to provide the Welsh translation recommended?

I am aware of the recommendation referred to by the hon. Member, and have had it under consideration. The cost of this Commission has already been extremely heavy, and any proposals involving additional expenditure will have to be very carefully weighed. I am in communication, however, with the chairman of the Commission as to the nature and bulk of the extracts which the Commission thought might with advantage be translated; and when I have obtained this information from him, I will communicate again with the Treasury.

I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent loss inflicted on shopkeepers and others by the similarity betwixt half-sovereigns and farthings, especially in gas light; and whether he would take into consideration some alteration in the design of the farthing in future coining, so as to make error and consequent loss avoidable?

No recent case has been brought to the knowledge of the Mint such as that described in the Question. As I pointed out in my reply to a Question put to me on February 25th last on this subject, there is an obvious difference between the farthing and the half-sovereign—[a laugh]—the former having a smooth, plain edge, and the latter a milled one. The reverse has an entirely different design—St. George and the Dragon in the case of the half-sovereign, Britannia in the case of the farthing. In addition the latter coin has the word "Farthing" engraved in conspicuous letters upon it. It appears, therefore, that error and consequent loss can be easily avoided by the use of ordinary care. I have considered some suggestions for a change, but have not been satisfied with any of them.

said that it was within his knowledge that the mistake had been made three times in the course of business by one person. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that by treating the metal with sulphur before issue the colour might be changed and the error prevented?

I went into that matter some little time ago.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House how many children suffering from scarlet fever, smallpox, and diphtheria have been removed from the Metropolitan pauper schools to the care of the Metropolitan Asylums Board during the year 1896, and what has been the cost of each of these patients per week, including interest on and repayment of capital charges. And can he also give the names of the schools which have respectively furnished the patients suffering from these diseases?

The Local Government Board has been informed by the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District that during the year 1896, 275 children suffering from scarlet fever and 15 from diphtheria, were removed from Poor Law Schools in the Metropolis (including two certified schools) to asylums of the Managers. There were no cases of small-pox. The schools from which children were removed were the separate schools of Islington, Hackney, Strand, Holborn, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, St. George's-in-the-East, Lambeth, and Westminster, and the schools of the Kensington and Chelsea, Central London, Forest Gate, and North Surrey School Districts. Children were also removed from the Exmouth Training Ship and from the North Hyde and St. Agnes' Orphanage certified schools. The Managers further inform the Board that it is not possible to state with precision what has been the cost of each patient per week, but that the average cost may be put at about 21s. per week per patient—this sum including maintenance and common charges.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Stephens, a deaf mute, who has been compelled to leave his employment in the foundry works of Messrs. Combe, Barbour, and Combe, in Belfast, through the action of the Inspector of Factories, the reason assigned being that the work was dangerous on account of the boy's deafness. And whether there is anything in the Factory and Workshops Act prohibiting the employment of a deaf and dumb boy, over 14 years of age, in a place where there is machinery; if not, whether he will acquaint the firm in question that they are at liberty to afford the boy an opportunity of earning his livelihood?

My attention has been called to this case. No child or young person under the age of 16 can be employed in a factory, either among machinery or elsewhere, unless he be certified as fit for employment in that factory by the certifying surgeon. In the present case, the certificate has been refused so far as work near machinery is concerned, but granted as regards file cutting. I cannot undertake the responsibility of interfering with the discretion of the surgeon in such a matter. It is obvious that in certain circumstances the employment of a deaf mute near machinery might be attended with serious danger.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence that has been given before the Horse-breeding Commission in Dublin, and made public, as to the harm that is being done to the horse-breeding industry in Ireland, their hackney stallions are to serve again during the coming season, or whether the Government intend to recommend the Board to discontinue its operations in connection with horse-breeding and to apply the money to purposes more generally useful to the congested population for whom it was intended?

I understand that different opinions have been expressed by witnesses already examined before the Horse-breeding Commission in Dublin, some having been in favour of the introduction of the hackney strain and others against. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Commission has not yet completed its labours or made its report, I cannot but think that my hon. and gallant Friend, on further consideration, will agree with me that it would be in any case premature at the present stage to take any action such as he suggests. I may add that this is a matter entirely for the Congested Districts Board to decide, and that the Government could not usefully take up the position of official adviser to the Board?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the evidence of probably the best witness before the Commission, in which he stated that if the Government wished to destroy the horse-breeding industry in Ireland they could not set about it in a better way than this?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, was there not a large amount of evidence in favour of the hackney strain?

Yes, but I think it is not desirable to anticipate the report of the Commission.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Commission reports against the continued use of the hackney strain will the Government appoint a second Commission to revise the decision of the first, as was done in case of the Financial Relations Committee?

May I ask, is it a fact that the evidence from County Cork was almost unanimous against the introduction of the hackney strain?

These questions are, after the answer given, altogether irregular.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a second clerk to a loan fund society is now in Sligo Gaol on a charge of embezzling £600 of the society's capital; if he can explain how a second clerk could obtain control over so large a sum without the collusion of other officers; and whether the Loan Fund Board will hold a searching inquiry into the matter?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the second clerk of the Belcoo Loan Fund Society is at present confined in Sligo Gaol on a charge of embezzling £600 of the loan fund; (2) whether there is any explanatian of the circumstances under which a sum, amounting to one-fourth of the entire capital of the loan fund society, has disappeared without the knowledge of the first clerk, the committee, and the trustees; and (3) whether the Loan Fund Board have held, or propose to hold, an inquiry into the working of this society?

The fact is as stated in the first paragraph of the Question of the right hon. Member for East Donegal, and of the similar Question standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal. The Loan Fund Board are not in possession of any evidence showing that there was collusion between the accused and any other official connected with the society; but I have no doubt the whole of the facts will be fully investigated on behalf of the Board at the trial of the accused, and pending such investigation it is undesirable to discuss the case further from this aspect. The Board inform me that they will continue their inquiry as to these frauds and into the circumstances leading to them.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the loan fund system in Ireland has yet been laid before the Irish Government; and, if not, when it is likely to be ready; and whether, having regard to the abuses, malversation, and oppression connected with the system, which have been repeatedly admitted by the Chief Secretary in his replies to Questions addressed to him in the House of Commons, this Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Report in question has been submitted to the Government. It is still under the consideration of the Loan Fund Board, who are in consultation with their legal adviser on the subject. A reasonable time must be allowed to enable the Board to come to a decision as to the course they propose to adopt in connection with the presentation of the Report. In the meantime I will ask the hon. Member not to press the Question put in the second paragraph.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M. MCCARTHY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to serious defalcations and frauds on the part of the late senior clerk of the Edgwarthstown Loan Fund Society, the Loan Fund Board in Dublin dissolved that society about a year ago; whether the books of the society were regularly inspected by the loan fund inspector, who failed to perceive irregularities in the accounts, and expressed no disapproval of the system of management; and whether, having regard to the fact that, owing to the dissolution of the society and the difficulty of collecting outstanding debts by a receiver who now desires to be relieved of his duties, the debenture holders are likely to be heavy losers, any relief or compensation will be given to them for the loss of securities through defalcations and frauds which the inspector of the Loan Fund Board, a body constituted by statute, and whose officers are Government officials, failed, from negligence or other cause, to detect for a long period of time?

I have referred this Question to the Loan Fund Board for a Report as to the facts, but not having yet received the Report, I regret to be obliged to ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question till Tomorrow. As regards, however, the concluding words of the Question, I must point out that neither the officers of the Loan Fund Board nor of the local societies working in connection with that Board are, in any sense of the word, Civil Servants of the Crown, and that Government exercises no control whatever over the proceedings of the Board or of the local bodies.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the personal clerks employed in the offices of the Official Receivers in Bankruptcy and Companies (Winding-up), the temporary architect, assistant surveyors, draughtsmen, and accountant clerks in the Director of Works and Works Loan Departments of the Admiralty, the legal assistants now employed in the several solicitors' departments of the Civil Service in lieu of permanent clerks formerly employed, and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his Reply to a Question addressed to him on 12th May last, are respectively employed temporarily in respect of possessing technical or professional qualifications; and, if so, why they are not included in the Return, No. 359, presented on 11th August last; and whether the said Return includes all persons employed temporarily in the Civil Service in respect of possessing technical or professional qualifications whose salaries are payable out of an annual lump sum allowance made to the head of the department; and, if not, whether he will agree to furnish a Supplementary Return which shall include all such persons?

The persons mentioned as being employed in the Admiralty are employed by the day, and were therefore expressly excluded from the Return. The others are employed and paid by heads of departments out of lump sums granted to them, and are not employed, temporarily or otherwise, in the Civil Service. They are, therefore, also properly excluded from the Return.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, after having observed the results of opening Hyde Park to cyclists up to twelve o'clock, he is now prepared to extend the period for cycling to one o'clock; and, whether he can hold out any hope of reserving the Serpentine Drive, or some other little-used roadway, for the exclusive use of cyclists within certain hours?

No, Sir; I cannot accede to the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's Question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he will be able to restore to the public the privilege of approaching the Houses of Parliament through Westminster Hall?

The existing arrangements for the admission of the public into Westminster Hall have been made after consultation with the authorities who have charge of the approaches to the Houses of Parliament, and it is not intended to make any change at present. The restrictions preventing the public from entering Westminster Hall were last year modified, and the public are now admitted by the south end at such times of the day as the House is not sitting.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, if it is brought to his knowledge that the Great Southern and Western Railway officials are willing that the fast mail from Dublin should be stopped at Mallow Junction, and that they are prepared to forward at once the mails and passengers to Killarney and Tralee as well as to Fermoy and Lismore, he will, on the part of the Post Office, consent to such an arrangement being carried out as soon as possible?

The Postmaster General would, of course, be prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals received from the railway company as regards the mails for Killarney and Tralee, but until he is acquainted with the full details of such proposals he is not in a position to say whether he will be able to assent to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the only station in the South of Ireland at which the mail trains of the Great Southern and Western Company now stop is Limerick Junction; and whether, in view of the importance of Mallow Junction as a centre of railway communication with the large districts of Cork and Kerry, arrangements will be made in the new time table for a stoppage at this station instead of at Maryborough or Kildare?

The mail trains between Dublin and Cork stop at Kildare, Maryborough, and Limerick Junction. The discontinuance of the stop at either Kildare or Maryborough would give rise to serious public inconvenience and complaint, but the question of arranging for a stop at Mallow in addition to the present stops is being carefully considered in connection with the revision of the time table consequent on the acceleration of the mail service between England and Ireland. The decision, however, will partly depend on the Company being able to increase the speed of the train so as to insure that the arrival at Cork shall not be retarded by the stop, and by the Company's readiness to put on trains to and from Tralee in connection with the mail, as without such trains the stop would be useless, and the Post Office would not be justified in paying for special trains for the service.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the chief object of the accelerated mail service between Dublin and Cork was not to benefit the South of Ireland?

Order, order! The Question on the Paper is a precise one about a very small local detail. It is not a general question.

May I point out, with great respect, that although this matter appears to be one of mere local interest, it forms part of a very important national question.

Order, order! That is exactly what I said did not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, S. (Mr. E. BARRY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps will be taken for the dispatch of the night mails on their arrival in Dublin, instead of allowing them to remain there for hours according to the present system; and whether any arrangement will be made for the delivery in London and other English business centres of the morning mails from Dublin at such an hour as to enable correspondents to reply by the evening mail, thereby considerably accelerating the transit of letters to and from England?

No, Sir. As I stated on the 15th instant, very strong pressure has been brought to bear upon the Postmaster General by Irish representatives to fix, not an earlier, but a later hour for the departure from Dublin of the day mail to England, which of course carries the night mails from the Irish provinces, and it is to meet this desire that the Department, with some reluctance, fixed 7.10 a.m. instead of 6.40 a.m. as the hour of departure of the English day mail from Dublin. As the time of arrival in London and all other places in England will, under the acceleration, be the same as at present, the existing arrangements for delivery will remain unaltered.

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

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

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, concurrently with the acceleration of the sea carriage of the Australian mails by four days under the new contract, any steps are in contemplation to improve the overland transit of these mails from Naples and Brindisi to London, with a view to the avoidance of the delays that occur from time to time on this section, and occasion considerable inconvenience to business men?

Although the question of acceleration of Australian mails across the continent of Europe has no connection whatever with that of increasing the speed at sea, the hon. Member may rest assured that the train service through France and Italy is most carefully watched by the Post Office, and that no opportunity of obtaining an improvement has been lost or will be lost in the future. The outward mails, for the land conveyance of which the Postmaster General pays, are invariably carried by special train whether to Brindisi or to Naples; but the homeward mails, for the land conveyance of which the Colonies pay, though carried by special train from Brindisi in one week, are carried by ordinary train from Naples in the other week. This cheaper means of transport is, of course, somewhat slower, and occasionally there have been delays from causes that do not arise in the special service. It is believed that the Colonies would be unwilling to face the expense of a special service from Naples to Calais; but when, occasionally, delay occurs in the ordinary service, representations are made to the French or Italian Post Office, as the case may be; and the service is considered to work well on the whole.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before taking Supply on Navy Estimates, he will furnish for the information of Members, a memorandum respecting the Officers of Royal Marine Artillery, stating the nature of examinations for candidates for commissions; the subsequent courses of study, instruction, training, and examination of these officers from the date of passing the entrance examination to the completion of their training at headquarters, Eastney; the time occupied in each such course of education and training, and the subjects in which they have to qualify at the examinations during and at the end of each such course of education and training; and further stating the nature of artillery, or gunnery, and torpedo duties assigned by Admiralty regulations, or by custom, to each rank of Officer of Royal Marine Artillery when serving afloat and with Naval forces on shore respectively?

I cannot undertake to complete the elaborate Memorandum suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend before taking the Estimates. Much of the information he asks for is quite accessible to him and to the public, but I will examine to what extent I can meet his wishes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any confirmation of the report that torture was applied to several prisoners in the fortress of Montjuich, Barcelona, during December 1896; and whether any of the sufferers are British subjects; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations to the Spanish Government on the matter?

Beyond a newspaper report which was sent to me by the hon. Member, we have heard nothing of the matter alluded to. If any evidence reaches us indicating that British subjects have been injured, of course, we should inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that steerage passengers landing from British bound American liners at Queenstown are cross-examined by the Royal Irish Constabulary as to their names, occupations, American addresses, destinations in Ireland, length of their proposed stay, the names of those they are going to visit, address, etc., and that passengers embarking at Queenstown are obliged to show their tickets to detective officers going on board; whether he is aware that this practice is generally complained of by tourists, and is seriously injuring the Irish tourist traffic because, in consequence of it, tourists prefer to land in and embark from British ports; and whether he will confine this action of the police to persons whom they may reasonably suspect of the commission of crime or intention to commit crime?

It is the practice of the police to invite passengers at Queenstown to give their names and places of destination, and passengers have cordially co-operated with the police in giving this information. It is not the fact, however, that passengers are interrogated as to the other particulars mentioned in the Question, nor is it true that passengers embarking at Queenstown are required to show their tickets to detective officers. When, however, the police have reason to believe that a particular passenger is an absconding criminal or a fugitive from justice, such person would no doubt be asked to exhibit his ticket. No complaints have been made to the police on the subject, nor is there any ground whatever for the suggestion that the tourist traffic has been injured in consequence of the police inquiries which I have indicated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received a memorial from the Skibbereen and Baltimore Harbour Board relative to the construction of a fishery pier at Baltimore; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the line of railway from Skibbereen to Baltimore, made for the purpose of promoting the fishing industry at a cost of £56,000, is practically useless for that purpose owing to the want of a suitable pier, he will grant the prayer of the memorial, and request the Treasury to advance the money necessary for its construction?

The memorial referred to in the first part of the Question has been received. The memorial does not allege that the line of railway from Skibbereen to Baltimore, constructed at a cost of £56,000 under the Act of 1889, is practically useless to promote the fishing industry. The memorialists, on the contrary, took the opportunity of expressing their acknowledgments of the boon conferred upon the district by the Government, whilst at the same time expressing their desire that a deep water pier should be constructed, and the existing line of railway extended to the pier. The Congested Districts Board some few years ago were prepared to contribute towards the cost of the construction of a pier at Baltimore on terms which were communicated to the Baltimore Railway Company. It does not appear, however, that the latter company agreed to the terms of this offer; and, although the Congested Districts Board do not now consider themselves bound by the offer formerly made by them, yet, if the Railway Company and the Harbour Board could come to an understanding with the Board in the matter, the question of a contribution would be again considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) will he explain why a district inspector, a head constable, a mounted constable, and two protection huts are still maintained in connection with the Massereene estate; (2) what is the annual cost of this establishment; and (3) whether any outrage has been committed in connection with the Massereene evicted farms?

The police arrangements referred to in the first paragraph are necessary for the efficient protection of new tenants on the Massereene estate. It has been found practicable to make a substantial reduction in the number of police employed on this duty on the estate since the adoption of special protective measures some years ago. Overt acts of outrage, as well as acts of boycotting and intimidation, have been committed from time to time in connection with the occupation of evicted farms on the estate, and many more would doubtless have been committed were it not for the supervision exercised by the police and the protection given to the persons and property of the new tenants. The annual cost of the police referred to in the Question amounts to about £1,436, no portion of which is charged to the district.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any Report has yet been received from the Commissioners appointed by him to visit the University Colleges which receive a Government grant; and (2), if so, whether there is any prospect of these colleges, or any of them, receiving an augmented grant in the next financial year?

The answer to the first Question is, Yes. My hon. Friend will find an additional Grant of £9,500 in the Civil Service Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the average distance or the approximate average distance that parcels are conveyed by the Inland Parcels Post of Great Britain and Ireland?

The Postmaster General has no precise information as to the average distance over which inland parcels are conveyed. It has never been considered necessary to obtain this information, and it would involve much trouble and expense to do so.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Purleigh, in South-east Essex; and whether he will consider the possibility of isolation instead of slaughter when there has only been a case of contact and not disease?

I am, of course, aware of the unfortunate outbreak of pleuro-pueumonia to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I regret that it is not possible for me to adopt the suggestion which he is good enough to make. Experience has amply shown that unless animals which have been exposed to infection are forthwith slaughtered there is no probability of the extirpation of the disease, and as a matter of fact one of the animals slaughtered at Purleigh was found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia of long standing.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the cases of pleuro-pneumonia which have occurred in Essex originated in that county; if not, to what locality their origin has been traced; and whether similar measures will be taken to prevent the importation of disease from one part of the kingdom to another, as have been applied to Canadian cattle?

Inquiries are still proceeding as to the origin of the cases of pleuro-pneumonia to which the hon. Member refers. There is some ground for believing that the affected animals may have been brought over from Ireland, but although a considerable number of cattle have been slaughtered by the Irish authorities at the places from which they are said to have come, no case of disease has been discovered. The Board have full power to prevent the importation of disease from one part of the kingdom to another, but there is practically uniformity of administration in these matters throughout the United Kingdom, and there is no necessity for our taking any measures in this direction under existing conditions.

:: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Post Office authorities has been called to the case of Miss Annie Jane Maxted, appointed six months ago as an assistant or clerk to the department, then pronounced healthy and strong, compelled as a condition to appointment to be re-vaccinated, suffered in consequence it is stated for six months, terminating in death on the 2nd instant; whether there is any authority by statute to enforce the above condition; whether it is ordered by the department assuming the power; and whether, while the recommendations of the Royal Commission are unconsidered by Parliament, the order will be continued?

The attention of the Postmaster General has been called to the case of Miss Maxted, but the facts are not as represented by the hon. Member. Miss Maxted was not pronounced healthy and strong six months ago; on the contrary, the Medical Officer who examined her reported that she was not strong, and was suffering from an enlargement of the superficial cervical glands of the neck. The cause of her death is certified to have been Lymphadenoma (Hodgkin's disease), and as a secondary cause Dermato Melasma suprarenale (Addison's disease), and neither of these resulted from the re-vaccination. Revaccination as a condition of appointment in the Post Office is enforced, not by statute, but by Post Office Regulation. The Regulation has been in force since 1863, and, in view of the remark- able immunity from small pox enjoyed by Post Office servants under this Regulation, it is not proposed to alter it.

I beg to give notice that in consequence of the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury I shall draw attention to this Question on the Estimates.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Naval Pensioner John Devine, of County Leitrim, is now an inmate in Sligo District Lunatic Asylum; is he aware that Devine, though discharged a physical and mental wreck, held the highest testimonials from his superior officers for honourable and efficient service; that he had been accustomed before his discharge to send his mother, Anne Devine, of Clonagh, County Leitrim, £2 per month out of his pay; and that the Governors of Sligo Asylum waived their claim against the pension of Devine, charging the amount so remitted on the local rates, and appealed to the Admiralty to pay the grant in aid without deducting it from the pension in order that the whole pension should go to Devine's mother, who has no other means of subsistence; is he aware that but for the generosity of the Asylum Governors, Mrs. Devine would now be an inmate of the local workhouse; and will he see that the pension of this man, who lost his mental and bodily health in Her Majesty's Service, is paid in full to his mother?

John Devine was discharged for general paralysis of the insane, constitutional, and not in any way due to his service in the Marines. The amount for which the Governors of the Sligo Asylum have waived their claim is £8 per annum. A deduction of £10 8s. a year from the man's pension is required to be made under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1887, on account of the Government contribution in aid of his maintenance. The full amount of the pension could, however, be paid to the mother on a certificate being furnished by the Governors of the Asylum that no claim for the Government grant will be made in this case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the land which was intended for the site of the Naval College at Dartmouth forms part of an estate in Chancery; whether the legal conditions render the exercise of their compulsory powers of purchase by the Admiralty undesirable; and, whether reconsideration will be given to the desirable sites which exist on the Southampton Water?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second in the negative. My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that there is no occasion for the Admiralty to reconsider their decision on the question of site.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether President Kruger's claim for the raid is £1,000,000 in all, or £1,677,000?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received from the High Commissioner's representative at Cape Town the full details of the claim of the South African Republic in regard to the late raid; and, if so, will he communicate them to the House; and, whether the claim is specifically made against Her Majesty's Government, or against certain corporations and companies holding property in the Transvaal or elsewhere in South Africa?

I have no information beyond the telegram which I read to the House on Thursday last, but I shall be happy to lay the claim on the Table when the documents reach me.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Fitzharris, a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, is lying dangerously ill, and that the doctor has stated his condition to he critical; and, whether, seeing that the prisoner has been in penal servitude for 14 years and would be entitled under the prison rules to a revision of his sentence in 12 months more, and as the prisoner is over 70 years of age, will he advise the Lord Lieutenant, to order his liberation?

This convict is not dangerously ill, nor is it the fact that the doctor has at any time stated his condition to be critical. The convict's age, according to the prison records, is 57, not 70 years. It does not come within my province to advise the Lord Lieutenant to order the discharge of a convict, but, of course, it is open to the prisoner to memoralise the Lord Lieutenant on the subject in the usual way.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Joseph Mullet, a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, who was convicted in April 1883, has been suffering four years from weakness of lungs and chest; and, whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to order his liberation?

It is the fact that convict Mullet has been suffering for several years from weakness of the lungs and chest, but his affection is not of an acute nature, and his health, on the whole, is better now than it was some years before his removal to Maryborough Prison. The observations I have made in reply to the latter part of the preceding Question apply equally to the suggestion at the end of this Question.

May I ask whether these are not two of the Phœnix Park murderers?

One is, I believe.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the Home Office, allow an independent, doctor to see these men and report, upon their condition?

If a memorial is sent by the prisoners their cases will be considered.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the report of the inquest on Walter Calvert, who was killed on 3rd February last when passing over the level crossing at Park Station, Tottenham, and also the finding of the jury that the footbridge should be altered so that it could be reached from the platforms instead of from outside the station; whether he has received a Petition, numerously signed by residents in the neighbourhood, asking the assistance of the Board of Trade to insure the safety of the public; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Yes, Sir; I have seen the report of the inquest, and also received the Petition referred to. I propose to communicate with the Company, and ask them whether they can alter the footbridge, so that it can be reached from the platforms; but the Board cannot make any order to that effect. I gather from the report of the inquest that the unfortunate man crossed the line, although there are notices in the station cautioning people not to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have considered a proposed increase of £30 a year in the salary of the clerk to the Ballyshannon Union for keeping the keys of the waterworks; and whether, before sanctioning this increase, they will take into consideration the fact that there was no public notice before the clerk was appointed caretaker of the waterworks, the clerk undertaking the work without payment?

A proposal has been made to allow a gratuity of £30 to the Clerk of the Union for his services in connection with the Waterworks since the year 1892, and this proposal is now receiving the consideration of the Local Government Board. There is no proposal before the Board to increase the Clerk's salary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what was the actual expenditure in Ireland out of the Votes for the Department of Science and Art in 1893–4, 1894–5, and 1895–6, respectively; and (2) what was the actual expenditure in Ireland in the same years out of Sub-head D of that Vote (Schools of Science and Art)?

This Question should properly have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. In his absence, I may say that the answer to the first paragraph is £43,505, £45,837, and £46,109, and the answer to the second paragraph £8,194, £8,408, and £7,390.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the correspondence at pages 386 to 389 of the Appropriation Accounts, what course the Treasury propose to take to settle the point of law raised by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland as to the unexpended balance of the fee grant; and whether, to avoid such difficulties in future, the Irish fee grant will be voted for 1897–8, and subsequent years, as a grant in aid, in accordance with Section 18 of the Irish Education Act, 1892?

If the hon. Member will read the Treasury letter which closed the correspondence, he will see that there is no point of law which requires to be settled. There is no need and no intention to change the present system.

was understood to ask whether the Treasury received money from the National Education Department.

was understood to assent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that it is stated, on the alleged authority of a member of the Pacific Cable Commission, that the cable from Canada to Australia would touch only at Fanning Island, Fiji, and Norfolk Island; whether he is in a position to state that this is the route recommended by the Commission; and whether he can approximately indicate the date on which he hopes to be able to lay the Report of the Commission upon the Table of the House?

I am unable to give any information as to the recommendations of the Committee, or to state when their Report will be published, for the reason which I gave in reply to a previous Question on the subject on the 28th of last month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the present National School system in Ireland requires an average attendance of seventy pupils in order to secure the services of an assistant teacher; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule injures the efficiency of many schools, consideration will be given to the desirability of reducing the average number to sixty?

I fear I cannot at present add anything to the replies which I gave to the Questions put to me on the 2nd and 4th inst. on this subject by the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. J. C. Flynn).

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet considered the advisability, or otherwise, of offering a reward for any information that may lead to the arrest of the murderer of Miss Camp?

It has been the rule at the Home Office for many years not to offer rewards in these cases, and I have no reason to suppose that there is any ground for departing from this rule on the present occasion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what amount of the money to be raised under the Military Works Bill is wanted for defraying costs of works already incurred since the 31st March 1896?

As far as can at present be estimated, about £86,000 will be required for work executed during this financial year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Town Council of Kirkcaldy have unanimously passed a resolution declaring that it is desirable that the site of the proposed new post office should be in High Street; and whether before any definite decision is made in the matter, due attention will be paid to this expression of local opinion?

The Postmaster General is aware that the Town Council of Kirkcaldy have passed a resolution declaring that it is desirable that the new Post Office for that town should be in the High Street, and he would be glad if their desire could be gratified. Full inquiry, however, has been made, and I regret to say that no suitable site in that street can be obtained at anything like the cost which the amount of the business would justify.

I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to that matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in the issue of the Navy Estimates; and can he state when they will be in the hands of Members?

There has been no unusual delay in issuing the Navy Estimates. During the last ten years they have only been issued on two occasions in the month of February—on the 25th and 27th of that month. It is hoped that they will be in the hands of Members on Monday, March 1st.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the established custom, if not absolutely the rule of the House, that Navy Estimates should be issued within ten days of the setting up of Supply?

No, Sir.

It is.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman refers to the circulation of the Navy Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why some 50 youths, who in February and October of last year passed for sorterships in the Chief Post Office, have not yet received appointments; when such appointments are likely to be made; and whether they will bear date from the time of the entries of the candidates into the service?

The 50 youths referred to have been employed temporarily since last autumn to meet the pressure of work in the General Post Office. Proposals will be submitted to the Treasury in a few days for making a permanent addition to the force employed in the General Post Office, and if those proposals are approved by the Treasury, the 50 persons referred to will, subject to the usual conditions, receive appointments dating from the time of their first employment on full duties.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much has been expended during the current financial year under the Barracks Act 1890, and what balance, if any, remains of the money authorised under that Act?

The approximate expenditure to date in the current year under the Barracks Act 1890, is £345,000, and the unexpended balance on the loan £798,000, but the whole of this balance has been allocated to definite services which have either been actually commenced or for which contracts have been authorised.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Her Majesty's Government will bring in a Bill authorising the directors of public companies liable to be assessed for rates in any parish or district to pay Voluntary School rates levied therein, if it shall appear that the levy of a compulsory rate will be obviated thereby?

In reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend, upon the information at present at my disposal, I do not think there is any necessity to bring in a Bill. Unless an express prohibition is contained in the Act of Parliament or other document constituting the company, the question of contribution to a voluntary rate is purely a matter for the discretion of the directors acting in the interests of the company, and if, as stated in the Question, it appeared that the levying of a compulsory rate which might create a heavier burden would be avoided by contribution to a voluntary rate, I see no reason why the directors should not, in the bonâ fide exercise of their discretion, contribute to a voluntary rate.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, inasmuch as the copy of an amending Order making regulations under the Agricultural Rates Act 1896, which was laid upon the Table on the 5th instant, was not issued until the 18th instant, that is, three days after the time limited by section 6, sub-section 3, for objecting to the Order, there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute; and whether the Order is now binding in law?

I am of opinion that the statute has been complied with, and the Order referred to by the hon. and learned Member is now in force and binding. The condition of the statute is, that the Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. This was done on February 5th, and the Votes and proceedings of both Houses record the fact. If, as I gather from the Question, there was some delay in the printing and distribution to the Members of the House, this does not invalidate the Order.

said it appeared that, in the opinion of the learned Attorney General, there was no legal remedy. It was obvious, therefore, that it was necessary—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]

Is the hon. and learned Member rising to a point of Order?

said that, to secure the rights of Members of the House, he wished to know, when Papers were presented pursuant to statute and ordered to be printed, who was responsible for seeing that the Papers were printed and circulated without delay?

replied that the hon. and learned Member had the same means as himself of finding out what Department was responsible. It was a little difficult to say.

said the Local Government Board had repudiated responsibility.

said that as this had happened two years in succession would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board undertake that in future if the important Order referred to in the Question was interfered with by verbal or other amending Orders, he would call the attention of the House to the matter?

replied that he would consult the President of the Local Government Board on the point, but the Board had complied with the statute and were in no way responsible.

I think everyone has suffered very much through the delay in printing Papers after they are laid on the Table of the House. Papers are laid on the Table and ordered to be printed, and then days, sometimes weeks, expire before they are in the hands of Members. May I ask whether in this House there is any authority to cause Papers which have been laid on the Table to be printed and circulated without delay?

Certainly papers which have been laid on the Table and ordered to be printed ought to be printed and circulated at the earliest possible moment. I will inquire into the matter, and if I find I have any authority I shall be ready to exercise it. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether there was not an Order of the House binding not only on the department concerned but on the officers of the House, to insure the speedy delivery of Papers that had been printed among Members of the House?

If any such Order of the kind is brought to my notice, I will consider its application.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix the date for the Debate on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and, whether he can say how many days the Government are prepared to give for the Debate?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix a date for the Debate on the Report of the Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, and also to the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have to say that, as the House is aware, the discussion on this important question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland was deferred in deference to the general wish of hon. Members from Ireland. We shall begin the discussion, in Committee, of the Education Bill on Thursday next. I think it would be inconvenient that the Committee stage of the Bill should be interrupted by other business. As soon, however, as that stage is concluded, I shall be prepared to find time for the discussion of the financial relations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to say anything more definite in regard to the first portion of the Question? I may point out in regard to the second portion of my Question that the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer at all.

As regards the first part of the Question, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible for me to forecast, I will not say with certainty, but with anything like confidence, the precise length of time which will be occupied in Committee on the Education Bill. I hope it will not be long, but that does not depend on the Government or on the supporters of the Government. As to the second paragraph of the Question, there is no desire on the part of the Government to unduly stint the discussion on the financial relations. We are prepared to give ample time, and I hope that pledge will not he abused by those hon. Gentlemen who desire to take part in the Debate.

asked if the discussion would be taken the first week in March, when the Irish Land Bill would be introduced—the Wednesday to be free for the Irish Land Bill?

It will be taken the second week in March, and I hope the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be finished by then.

asked whether he correctly understood that, if the Committee stage of the Education Bill was not finished before March 10, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Wednesday for the Irish Land Bill?

I shall have no choice in the matter.

asked whether the Government intended to proceed with the Committee Stage of the Education Hill de die in diem until it was finished?

Yes, Sir, with the exception of Friday.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would place on the Table as a Return the terms of the reference to the Commission on the financial relations? It would be convenient to have it before us in print.

I do not know whether it is usual to lay on the Table as a Return the terms of the reference to a Royal Commission, but I will see what I can do to comply with the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.

asked whether, in view of the strong opinion entertained against the appointment of the Commission on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman would not suspend any step in the direction of its appointment until after the Debate?

I think I gave a pledge in that direction before, but if I am wrong I am quite willing to state again that the Commission will not be appointed until after the Debate on the financial relations.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be presented and issued to Members; whether they can be issued early in the week; and whether he will arrange to take them, as was done last year, before the Civil Service Estimates for the ensuing year 1897–8?

The Estimates will be printed, or at all events all the Supplementary Estimates that will be taken next Friday will be printed on Wednesday. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it does not depend on me but upon the Department that prepares the Supplementary Estimates as to what date they are laid before the House, but I trust that will be convenient.

Which of the Supplementary Estimates will be taken on Friday? Will Class 4 be taken?

I believe that the only Supplementary Estimate—so my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury informs me—in regard to which there is any doubt about its being printed is one which has come in very late from the Irish Land Committee.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has, seen in the Irish daily papers of Friday last, the report of the meeting held in Belmullet on the previous day, under the Chairmanship of the Right Rev. Monsignor Hewson, V.F., P.P., when that right rev. gentleman speaking with the authority of his high position affirmed that distress bordering on famine existed in the Belmullet Union; if he had noted that amongst other assertions made on the occasion by Monsignor Hewson, the following are in record in the report of his speech: (1) That the distress now existing threatened to be the most serious that the people had been in since 1860, and that it would probably not be exceeded by that of the winter of 1870, and the spring of 1880; (2) that the official sent down recently from the Local Government Board to inquire into the distress in the Belmullet Union never visited a single homestead or a single farm in the parish of Belmullet; (3) that from the end of November up to the present time the consumption of meal in the districts supplied by the traders of Belmullet had increased eighteen fold beyond the normal consumption in other years, proving as Monsignor Hewson held, that the potato crop had failed; (4) that the rates laben all round in the Belmullet Union amounted to nearly 10s. in the pound between poor rates and baroney cess; and whether in view of such assertions made by an ecclesiastic of Monsignor Hewson's position and authority, the Government will not now take immediate and exceptional measures to meet this distress in the Belmullet Union?

The hon. Member who puts this Question was good enough to hand in at the Irish Office today a private notice of it; but time, of course, has not admitted of my obtaining a detailed report. I may, however, say that I have before me official reports made from sources other than the Local Government Board, which confirm the reports already made by that Board. From these reports it appears that there is no reason to anticipate general distress of a nature requiring the exceptional expedient of relief works, and it is expected that any cases of distress which may arise can be dealt with under the Poor Law system.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will propose a Commission to inquire into the massacres recently perpetrated in Crete, and especially as to the fate of the Mussulman inhabitants of the interior of the island?

Her Majesty's Government do not think that there would be any advantage in making such a proposal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Colonel Vassos, who is in command of the Greek troops in Crete, states among other things, in the course of his proclamation, that he has orders to keep the peace between Christian and Moslem inhabitants; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Powers are unable to keep up communication with or to keep order in the interior of the island, and that the Greek forces are in a position to do so, the Powers will consider the desirability of delegating to them that duty?

The proclamation issued by Colonel Vassos promised among other things, peace to the inhabitants of Crete. So far, however, the presence of the Greek troops would seem to have had an opposite effect. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government consider it unlikely that the Powers would consider the desirability of delegating to the Greek forces any such duty as is spoken of in the Question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the second part of the Question that the Powers are unable to keep up communication with or keep order in the interior of the island?

I think I have answered that Question every day during the last week. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what branch of the British Service does Major Bor belong; by whom was he appointed to organise the gendarmerie at Canea; and under whoso directions does he act?

Major Bor belongs to the Royal Marine Artillery. His appointment as Commander of the Cretan Gendarmerie was proposed with the approval of all parties in the Island, by the International Commissioners, but did not meet with the unanimous assent of the Powers. Pending the appointment of another officer, who should not be chosen from the subjects of any of the Great Powers, Major Bor was asked to undertake the duties of the post provisionally. He accepted and arrived on the 6th instant at Canea, where he acts under the direction of the Turkish authorities.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Power opposed Major Bor's appointment.

I do not think there is any secret about it: in fact, I have stated it to the House. Major Bor's appointment was opposed by Russia.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to confirm or deny the statement that several Christians were roasted alive in a baker's oven during the recent disturbances in Canea?

Her Majesty's Consul reports, by telegraph, that on first hearing of the story that Christians had been roasted alive at Canea, he went with Mr. Alvarez, the British Delegate on the Judicial Commission, to the bakery where this outrage was alleged to have taken place. They carefully examined the ruins, but could find no trace of dead bodies inside or outside the oven. Four bakers' apprentices, who were said to have perished in another bakery, were subsequently found alive.

I desire to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether there is any truth in the statements in to-day's papers that the Cretan forces have been fired upon by the united fleets of the Powers, and whether a Turkish transport carrying troops has been escorted by a British torpedo boat from one part of the island to another?

Since I came into the House I have received private notice of quite a number of questions from hon. Members, nearly all of which relate to the same topic. Perhaps other hon. Members will allow me to reply to them at the same time. Our information is not to the effect that there has been any attack upon, or bombardment of, the Greek forces in Crete. The insurgents outside Canea, in spite of the injunctions of the Admirals who, under orders from their Governments, had made themselves responsible for the protection of Canea, renewed their attack upon the town from the south-east yesterday. Under these circumstances the international squadron had no choice but to prevent by force the advance from being continued—[Opposition cries of "Oh!" and Ministerial cheers]—which they accordingly did. [Opposition groans, several cries of " Shame," and renewed Ministerial cheers.] The firing lasted but a few minutes. As regards the Turkish transport, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked me, we have no information.

I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

There is an hon. Member waiting to take his seat.

who was received with Opposition cheers, said: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the firing on Greek forces in Crete by Her Majesty's ships. [Cheers.]

There has been no firing on Creek forces. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "On Cretan forces!"]

having read the Motion,

On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether, as the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated there has been no firing on Greek forces—[Opposition cries of "Cretan forces!" and an HON. MEMBER: "The House will decide that!"]—this Motion is in Order?

On a point of Order also, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the forces on whom the international ships fired were Greek forces. [Cheers.] The Cretans are Greeks, from my point of view; but I will change the word if you like.

The Motion can be changed, no doubt, by using the words, "Cretan insurgents," or whatever the fact is—I do not know myself—but I do not think it is necessary to make the change as Cretans are, in one sense, Greek. [Cheers.] Is the hon. Gentleman supported by 40 Members? The whole of the Members on the Opposition side of the House, including the occupants of the Front Bench, having risen in their places amid loud cheers,

who was again greeted with cheers, moved "That this House do now adjourn." The hon. Member said that a few days ago the adjournment of the House was moved in order to call attention to what was going on in Crete, in regard to which many of them entertained the most profound distrust. [Cheers.] On that occasion they were told that no reply would be given to them. The Leader of the House told them that they must take very great care even when they merely asked for information from the Government, as the slightest mistake might lead to a great war in Europe. [Ministerial cheers.] He did not believe in this bugbear of a great European war. [Cheers.] They had information in the public newspapers that morning, which had been confirmed by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the international fleet, with British ships in the front—[cheers]—had fired upon Greek forces—as he contended they were—but in any case they were Cretans fighting for their independence. [Cheers.] What was the explanation given to the House? Her Majesty's Government declared that the international forces had taken possession of three towns in Crete, and they protested that they only fired when they found that the Cretans would not recognise this occupation and tried to take those towns. But he would point out that the whole of Crete, with the exception of those three towns, was in the hands of the Cretans. [Cheers.] In those towns there were Turkish garrisons, and those garrisons, according to the newspapers, had frequently issued from the towns, waged war upon the insurgents, and had then fallen back on the towns. Was it surprising that the Cretans should wish to put an end to all this? [Cheers.] Upon what possible ground had the Government interfered by landing soldiers and marines to hold those towns, except for the benefit of Turkey? [Cheers.] Those towns would have been taken by the insurgents had not the Great Powers interfered, and now, not content with holding those towns, the English fleet had, to the horror of the English people, fired upon the insurgents and driven them back. It was time for the Liberal Party to speak out on this matter. [Loud cheers.] They were told that they were not to make this question of foreign affairs a Party question. [Ministerial cheers.] They made it a national question. [Cheers.] They believed that the people of England were determined that we ought not to interfere in any sort of way diplomatically, and still less by force of arms, in favour of the Turks in any part of the Turkish Empire, and yet that was what we were doing at the present moment. [Cheers.] He moved the adjournment of the House in order to give the Government the opportunity of explaining what was going on in Crete. But, so far as he was concerned, it was enough for him that the atrocious wickedness had been committed; and he would carry his Motion to a Division in order that, although they might be in a minority in the House, the country should clearly understand they should do their utmost to prevent any further action being taken on behalf of that miserable creature, that foul blot upon civilisation, the Sultan of Turkey. [Loud cheers.]

Order, order! I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking of a friendly Sovereign; and it is one of the rules of the House to speak of a friendly Sovereign with the same decency of language as would be employed in speaking of a Member of this House or of the other House. [Ministerial cheers.]

I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of that rule, but I was carried away by the thought of the statements which have been made by Mr. Gladstone and other eminent Liberals in regard to the Sultan. [Laughter and cheers, and Ministerial cries of"Oh!"] I beg to move my Motion.

in seconding the Motion, said that when the question of Crete was raised a few days ago, on a Motion for the Adjournment of of the House, appeals were made by the Government to the House not to disturb the Concert of Europe, and to observe that reticence which foreign affairs deserved. In his humble judgment the House had been too silent on this question—[cheers]—and as a consequence they had this outrage—for it was regarded as an outrage by the great majority of the people of the kingdom—of the guns of her Majesty's fleet having been turned on men who, after centuries of oppression, were risking their lives in defence of everything a civilised people held dear, and were gallantly driving their oppressors, the Turks, before them. [Cheers.] For months they had been gulled by declarations as to the necessity of maintaining the Concert of Europe. But what had the Concert of Europe done—what had the mighty engines of the Great Powers which lay around the coast of Crete done to protect one man, woman, or child in Crete until their hands had been forced by the gallant Creek nation? [Cheers.] And were it not for the action of the Creeks, the fleets of the European Powers might still be hanging round the coast of Crete consulting and negotiating until the whole population of the island was murdered. [Cheers.] What was the situation in Crete? The House was told that the Powers of Europe had undertaken at the eleventh hour to maintain peace and order, and to protect the inhabitants of Crete; and in the same breath they were told that it was impossible for the Powers to communicate with the interior of the island. The fact was that the Powers of Europe would not solve this question or allow the Greeks to solve it. [Cheers.] He charged against the Government—no matter what evasive answers might be given in the House—that at the present moment the forces of England were ranged on the side of the Turks. [Cheers.] He was not surprised that the Speaker had intervened to protect the Sultan as a friendly Sovereign. Until to-day, when they read the disgraceful news in the papers, the people and the House of Commons were under the impression that the Government did not desire the Sultan to be considered as a friend of this country. [Cheers.] He was not only a friend, he was an ally. [Cheers.] The House was told that Turkish authority prevailed in Canea under the protection of the marines of the six Powers. Therefore at present the British forces were the allies of the Turks and the enemies of Greece and the Cretan people. The answer of the Under Secretary had been carefully worded to minimise the details of this bombardment; but would the Government contradict the details given by the Daily News correspondent at Canea?—

"At 4.30 this afternoon signals were made to the Dryad, Harrier, and Revenge, and also to one Italian, one German, and one Russian ship to open fire on the Cretan position."

Who was the dictator or commander-in-chief to set Her Majesty's ships in motion in this way? [Cheers.]

"This was done. The British ships fired some 40 shells, making with the others about 70 in all, at the village and round house which were held by the Cretans. The flag was soon hauled down. Cease fire was sounded after ten. minutes. Thereupon the flag was again hoisted. The rocks round the position were crowded with Cretans. The Turks, encouraged by the fleet, now opened a lively fusilade, while the Cretans were carrying off their wounded."

The British would fire on the Cretan insurgents, but they would not silence the Turkish batteries. [Cheers.] This account ought to be contradicted by some member of the Government, or an apology ought to be made to the House. The Government had made a mockery of the House by the replies which had been given to questions. [Cheers.] It had long been asserted that everything was being done for peace and order in Crete, and the other day the Under Secretary stated that the late Vali had been appointed in accordance with the arrangement with the Powers, that no attempt had been made to interfere with his authority, and that Turkey had loyally carried out the agreement with the Powers. Now the Vali himself stated that from the moment he landed in Crete he never had any authority, and that messengers were sent from Constantinople warning the Turkish troops to take no orders from him and give him no support. It was an uncontested fact that the whole arrangement was a fraud and an imposture from the beginning. [Cheers.] The reply given to him to-day was most unsatisfactory. He asked whether it was true that during the burning of Canea some three weeks ago five Christians had been put into an oven and baked alive?

I must remind the hon. Member that last week there was a discussion on the general policy of the Government in the matter of Crete, and it is a rule of the House that the same question cannot be twice debated in the same Session on a Motion for adjournment. The present Motion refers to the firing on Greek forces by British war vessels at Canea, and to that point the hon. Member must confine himself.

said his argument was that the Powers had shown themselves ineffective in protecting the life and property in Crete, that the Greeks were the right people to undertake the task, and that the Powers had no right to prevent the Greeks from restoring order. He should like to know whether that would be in order?

I cannot give a general direction to the hon. Member beforehand; but the question whether five people were baked in an oven is not relevant to the matter before the House. I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the words of the Motion, which relate to the firing on the Greek forces by Her Majesty's ships, and I trust he will confine himself to what bears upon that question.

said that he had received information which made him gravely doubt the answer given by the Under Secretary, and he hoped further inquiries would be made. He wished to know what was the international position as between the British forces and the Greek forces in Crete? Was England at war with Greece? [Cheers.] If not, what right had England to turn her ships' guns on the Greek forces? [Cheers.] Either England was at war with Greece or was acting as the policeman of the Sultan. Was she lending her forces to do the dirty—the infernal—work of the Sultan? [Cheers.] High and mighty politicians had delivered lectures on international obligations; and Greece had been taken to task by The Times and other authorities for breaches of those obligations. What, then, was the international position of England? [Cheers.] There were times and occasions where the motive and the cause justified breaches of the law, whether national or international. If Greece had acted wrongly, from the narrow standpoint of international law, she had done it under great provocation and in a good cause. [Cheers.] He had lately seen a letter from a lady in Athens wondering at the action of the British Government, and saying that if we had seen in the streets of our towns women and children refugees with noses and ears cut off, our blood would boil. [Cheers.] Greece had violated international law, if at all, in the cause of human freedom, and the generous sentiment of all mankind approved her. [Cheers]. England had equally violated international law; but it was done to maintain tyranny and to outrage the sentiment of the whole civilised world. [Cheers.]

The House will learn without surprise that I do not mean to imitate the violence of language—[cheers, cries of "Oh!" and "What about the guns?"]—which has characterised the Mover and Seconder of the Motion we are now discussing. I speak with too great a sense of the responsibility which devolves upon the Government and of the difficulties and dangers impending over Europe as a whole to allow, as far as I am concerned and as far as I can help it, this Debate to degenerate into a controversy between the two sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who opened the Debate, followed in this as in other matters by the Seconder, poured great contempt upon the very suggestion that the present condition of Europe was one which might well involve anxious considerations for all who care for the cause of peace—that if, either through error or misfortune, a spark really falls into the combustible material too widely spread, we may be on the verge of some great European catastrophe. [Cheers.] Those who deride such fears as illusory are surely blind themselves to facts of contemporaneous history. There have been in the history of Europe many periods when Europe was anxiously watching the ambitions of one great Power or another, not knowing whether such Power was not going for its own selfish purposes to precipitate warlike operations. Sir, there is absolute unanimity, there is an absolutely unanimous desire among every one of the Great Powers to avoid anything in the nature of war. [Cheers.] No ambition, no personal ambition, interferes or is likely to interfere with that desire. And yet when we find that the masters of these colossal armies are themselves moved with the deepest anxiety lest war should be declared, lest those embattled hosts should really be thrust one upon the other with results which nobody can contemplate without horror, surely it is not even for great international authorities like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—[Cheers and laughter, and, counter cheers and cries of "No!"]

I did not pose as such. [Cheers.]

Or the hon. Member for Northampton, who preceded him, to say that such fears are illusory, the creations of a disturbed brain. [Cheers.]

I said nothing about international authorities. I said what ninetenths of the people of this country feel. [Cheers.]

I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does me the honour to interrupt me again his interruption will be more relevant. I say that these fears to which I have given expression in this House, and which are entertained by every responsible Statesman in the North, in the South, in the East, in the West of Europe, are surely not to be brushed aside because the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Mayo tell us they are illusory. [Cheers.] We are not concerned merely with the peace of Europe, although that is a consideration the gravity of which I should have thought could not have been exaggerated; we are also concerned, and I for one admit it, with the peace of Crete and with the future government of that island. The hon. Gentleman appears to hold the view that the action of the Greeks has been entirely in the direction—I am speaking now of the present condition of the island—of saving life and property, and that the action of the Powers has been wholly impotent to secure either of those great ends. Sir, there has been a sacrifice, a deplorable sacrifice, both of life and property in Crete, and I think if the hon. Gentleman will carefully and impartially consider I who is most responsible for that loss and who has done most to obviate it, he will certainly not say that the international forces have been idle or ineffective, or that the actions of the Greek forces have been marked by success in these directions. [Cheers.] Let us always remember in dealing with this question of Crete that the population of Crete, although it may be a homogeneous population in point of race—I think it is so in race—is not homogeneous in point of religion, and that we have not merely to deal with a large number of those who are Christian by religion, but we have also to deal with a large minority who are Mahomedan by religion. Those who desire good government and security for life and property are bound to regard not less the security of Mahomedan life and property than that of Christian life and policy. Both are and both ought to be sacred to this House, and we ought to do all that we can, not only for one party alone, but for both. [Cheers.] Let me ask in the second place whether we are seriously to understand that this House is of opinion that when a town has been occupied by forces representative of the Great Powers, when the Great Powers have made themselves responsible for the peace and good order of such town, and when the town and the people are menaced by the operations of insurgents outside the. walls, the Great Powers are to fold their arms and withdraw their ships. [Cheers.] Is that a policy which is seriously pressed upon the Government from any quarter of the House? Whatever our view may be of the proper future for Crete and of the action of the Greek Government, at all events these elementary propositions will be agreed to by both sides of the House—namely, that when the Great Powers have occupied and made themselves responsible for peace and security they ought not to tolerate from any outside force interference with the prerogative which they have taken on themselves. [Cheers.] I may say, in passing, that we have no information in any sense confirming the narrative the hon. Gentleman has given us of those transactions. I know nothing of the source from whence he derives his information.

From the Special Correspondent of the Daily News. [Cheers, and ironical cheers and laughter.]

I have nothing to say against that gentleman, whose name I know nothing about. But I may say to the House that there is no information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, there can be no information given to the House, which in any sense confirms what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have received any information on the subject?

No, we have no details. Having now briefly dealt with these two points of the European, situation in the first place, imperilled, as we think, by these transactions, and of the condition of Crete and the action of the Great Powers resisting aggression upon towns under their immediate protection, I come now to what is, I believe, after all, at the bottom of the strong sentiments which I doubt not most genuinely animate hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, the future condition of the island. Upon this subject the House will not think that I desire to keep anything from them when I say that we feel ourselves absolutely bound by the present conditions of international communications to speak with the utmost reserve upon this point. As I understand the matter, hon. Members opposite argue in this way. They say:—

"Here are the Great Powers engaged in exacting from Turkey and trying to introduce into the island reforms which may look very well upon paper, but which, after all, are not so very much better than other reforms which have been extorted by the same influence from the same Power, and which may suffer the same fate as those previous reforms have done."

I think hon. Members opposite will admit that I have put their argument which is at the bottom of their feeling on this question fairly and in a manner which they will not desire to alter or, I hope, to add to. I can only say upon this point that Her Majesty's Government entirely feel the force of that argument. They recognise perfectly well—perfectly clearly, as clearly as any hon. Gentleman opposite can do—that to leave Crete in a condition, bless it with what paper reforms you like, in which it would rest with the Turkish Government to upset by its own will the good work which Europe has endeavoured to accomplish—to do that would fall far short of the international duties we have taken upon ourselves. [Cheers.] I do not think that I ought to say more upon the subject. The House will, I hope, appreciate the difficulties under which I speak. [Cheers.] And I hope that, although I am necessarily most reticent in the observations I have to make in regard to the future, the House will allow that the frank and clear statement of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen opposite see in the future, and which we recognise as clearly as they do, may satisfy them that everything will be done which we can do to obviate dangers of which we ourselves are fully conscious. [Cheers.] With that declaration, which I trust may not be unsatisfactory, I hope that the House may consent to bring to an end as soon as may be a Debate which I can most conscientiously say will, in my judgment, serve neither the interests of Europe, nor the interests of Crete, nor—perhaps of no less importance—the interests of this country. [Cheers.] The task in which we are engaged is an anxious and difficult one. I hope the House will not make it more difficult by Debates animated, I believe, by honest, fervid feeling, by the expression of sentiments which I fully recognise not only exist strongly in this House, but are largely felt by gentleman of all opinions and all classes out of doors. [Cheers.] I believe that if they do not wholly trust our capacity they will at all events give us credit for good intentions—[cheers and cries of "No!"]—and for an earnest desire to do the best we can for the population of the island with a full consciousness of all the difficulties that have prevented reforms in the past, and an earnest desire to see that those difficulties shall not interfere with reforms in the future. [Cheers.]

who rose amid cheers, said: I am quite sure that no man in this House will speak on this subject without a sense of responsibility; but this I do feel, that the time has come when the voice of England ought to be heard upon this question. [Cheers.] Upon a question involving the liberties of the Greek people the voice of England has always been the first and the leading voice. I think that it is just 70 years since the death of Canning. In those days the voice of England was heard in Europe, and with great effect, in the cause of Greece. The right hon. Gentleman has invited our silence and he has spoken of the combustible condition of things in the Greek waters. Yes, Sir, but it is because of the combustible condition of things there that we protest to-day against shells from English men-of-war—[cheers]—being exploded in the midst of that combustible material. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken sarcastically of the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo to the principles of international law. I am afraid I must also submit myself to his lash; I must ask, What is the international position which England claims to occupy to-day in Crete? ["Hear, hear!"] What is the position of things in Crete? Crete is a country nominally subject to Turkey. It is a part of the Turkish dominions. An insurrection has arisen in Turkish dominions. Why are you there? [Cheers.] What are you doing there? What is your object? Why, Sir, apparently your object is to assert and to maintain the dominion of Turkey against the insurgents. [Cheers.] What were those bombs fired from the British Fleet for? I suppose to put down the insurrection in Crete as against the Turks. The right hon. Gentleman has said that you have occupied these towns. Yes, but what have you occupied them for? [Cheers.] Why are you in those towns at all? For what purpose did you go to them? Well, the Greek forces have joined the insurrectionary forces in Crete. That, of course, is on their own responsibility. One country may join one side in an insurrection. The Creeks have joined the insurrectionary Cretans, and you have joined the Turks. [Loud cheers.]

That is not correct. [Cheers.]

But what is correct? [Cheers.] We know whom the Greeks have joined. Whom have you joined? [Cheers, and an HON. MEMBER: "Neither."] I want to get to the bottom of the situation internationally. What are you doing here, and what is the object at which you are aiming? [Cheers.] Now, there is another statement to which no answer has been made. A question has not been put, but I find this stated in the correspondence to-day, and I should like to know if it is true:—

"The foreign admirals went to-day to Agioi Theodoroi, where Colonel Vassos' camp is situated. On their return they invited the commander of the Greek warship Nauarchos Miaulis to call upon them, and informed him of their decision to attack the Greek troops with the four men-of-war anchored off Agioi Theodoroi if Colonel Vassos should advance into the interior."

This is in The Times correspondence of to-day, and we ought to have a statement as to whether or not it is true. It proceeds:—

"The commander of the Nauarchos Miaulis and the British Admiral then proceeded to the Greek headquarters and acquainted Colonel Vassos with the decision of the foreign commanders."

Is that true? Did the British Admiral make that communication to Colonel Vassos? And then, I ask, if that is so, What is your international situation? By what right and on what title and from what point of view are you taking sides in this insurrection? [Cheers.] That is an international question on which I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman would condemn me if I offered an opinion. But what we have a right to do is to ask Her Majesty's Government their opinion on this subject. [Cheers.] We are told that the Great Powers have taken this matter up. Well, Sir, but the Great Powers have been taking these matters up for a long time. [Cheers.] We have had the Concert of Europe in Armenia. What was told us with reference to the Concert of Europe in Armenia? That nothing could be done, and now we are waiting upon the Concert of Europe to determine upon the future of Crete, and meanwhile we are bombarding the insurgents. [Cheers and laughter.] That is not a condition of things which, in my opinion, ought to be allowed to continue. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Concert of Europe cannot come to a conclusion on the subject of the treatment of Crete, we ought not to take the part which unfortunately we seem to have been taking in these affairs for the last two days. ["Hear, hear!"] We have received a statement, and I am satisfied with that statement—it is understood that Lord Salisbury has sent a circular to the Powers to say that they should not interfere with Greece—and I should have thought interfered with Crete at all—until the Powers had come to a conclusion as to what was to be done in the future with Crete. If that is so, why are you bombarding in the meantime? [Cheers.] Why do the Powers not come to a conclusion in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like to know whether the Government adhere to that position—the sound position which is stated to have been taken up by Lord Salisbury in this matter. Why not adhere to that position—that they will take no part with reference to Greece, and that they will take no part in the Cretan insurrection, until a conclusion has been arrived at by the Powers as to the future treatment of Crete? ["Hear, hear!"] We are told that if we meddle in these matters there will be universal war. That argument has been used—I was going to say it has been abused—[cheers]—for some time. Whenever anything occurs, whether in Armenia, in Crete, or anywhere else, you say at once, "Do not say a word, or there will be universal war." But we are not going to make war. We want nothing. Why should war take place? ["Hear, hear!"] I do not understand what this universal war is to be. We are not going to fight anybody. Who is going to fight, and against whom? We ought to have some explanation of that. [Cheers.] Why, then, are we to be told, with reference to this Concert of Europe, which does nothing, that we are to hold our peace, and take part in nothing, because universal war will occur, and no explanation is given why a war should occur, or of what nature it will be? We ought to understand whether we are acting in this matter according to the old formula of that superannuated diplomacy which goes by the name of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire? [Cheers.] Then we shall understand our position. It is one against which I shall protest. I rather gather from the right hon. Gentleman the hope that what the Government are proceeding to do is to detach Crete from Turkish rule. That is the only policy which, in my opinion, is worthy of an English Government—[cheers]—and I hope that the Government are pursuing that policy. If, as I had believed from the account given of the circular of Lord Salisbury, it were the fact that he was pressing that policy, that he was demanding and pressing upon the Powers to come to an understanding upon that subject, I can assure the Government that, as far as I am concerned, I should have given them my cordial support. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] I hope that is still their policy. I think the principle laid down by Lord Salisbury is a perfectly sound one, and I hope he will adhere to it, whatever else may be done by any other Power. [Cheers.] What is wanted is, that the Powers should come to a determination without delay on the question of emancipating Crete from Turkish rule. That is the point to which I think we ought to direct all our thoughts and energies—["hear, hear!"]—but in the meanwhile, until such a decision has been arrived at, and in order to precipitate such a decision, let us, for Heaven's sake, abstain from being the leading actor in putting down this insurrection—[cheers]—because we are presented to Europe and to Greece as the bombarding Power in this affair. Why is England, who is, I believe, the most desirous to bring this matter to a speedy and safe conclusion—why should we be put forward as the loading actors in this transaction? [Cheers.] I regret that very much, as on the policy of the Government generally in endeavouring to come to a settlement I am not disposed to oppose them, but rather to support them in what I understand to be their policy in demanding a settlement on the Cretan question before they interfere in any way with Greece. If that is their policy I am sure they will be supported. ["Hear, hear!"] But what shocks this House and gives great uneasiness and causes great condemnation outside this House is that, in the meanwhile, we should appear as the active opponents of the Greek cause by what we are doing, that we should be occupying these towns in Crete—for whom? Obviously for the Turk, who is nominally master of Crete. I confess I think this bombardment a most unfortunate event—an event which places England in a false position in the eyes of all the world. [Cheers.] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has made this Motion, as I understand it, as a protest against that transaction, and in order that, in the House of Commons, where we have an opportunity of expressing the voice of the people we represent, we may protest, until the emancipation of Crete is accomplished, against our being the foremost to take up arms, as it were, against a people who are fighting, and rightly fighting, for their own freedom. [Loud cheers.]

said that the right hon. Gentleman had made a most serious and dangerous proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was an invitation—nay, a challenge—to the Government to break up the Concert of Europe. The conflict in Crete was a conflict between the Greeks on the one hand, and united Europe on the other. [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] Hon. Members had apparently forgotten that not six months ago the Powers of Europe, acting together, framed a new-constitution for Crete. It was true that they did not know exactly what it was—[Opposition cheers]—but that constitution did exist, and the Powers had appointed their own Governor in the island, where he was ruler until be absconded the other day. It was contrary to fact to say that England was fighting with Greece. What had really occurred was that Greece had undertaken a piratical expedition. [Loud Opposition, cries of " Oh!" and cheers.] Yes; for no allegation had been made against Turkey, and no demand had been made for reparation of an injury. It was, therefore, a piratical expedition. [Renewed cries of "Oh!"] But he did not understand the proceedings of the Powers. He could not comprehend why one day they should prohibit Greece from landing troops and munitions of war and permit her to do so on the next. [Opposition cheers.] It was not, however, correct to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that England was fighting either against Christians or Greece. What England was doing was this—she was acting with the European Powers against a piratical expedition. Shots, however, had been fired, and practically England was at war at this moment. [Opposition cheers, and Mr. DILLON: "With whom?"] He did not quite know. [Laughter.] That was one of the things he wanted to know; but undoubtedly acts of war had been committed, and that was a matter upon which that House had a right to have all the information which the Government could give. He did not say that they had a right to information as to the negotiations of the Powers with respect to the future, but they ought to know the actual course of events of which the firing formed part. Crete was a region of mountains, with ravines running down to the seashore. Did the Government intend to occupy the seaport towns and to leave the Greek troops in occupation of the interior? Did they intend to allow the Greeks to continue to land troops, stores, and munitions of war in Crete, and did they intend to prevent the Turks from doing likewise? Although the constitution invented for Crete and surrounded with guarantees by the Powers had tumbled to pieces, the Government said that they would not do anything until they know what the future was to be. He had no sympathy with this Motion for Adjournment, and he quite recognised the extreme gravity of the situation. At the same time, he could not forget that acts of war were being committed by British ships, and, in the circumstances, he held that they were entitled to have a plain statement from the Government of the plan by which they proposed to pacify the Island of Crete. ["Hear, hear!"]

was glad that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had asked the Government for information. The position that they had been in during the whole of this Eastern crisis—for the last 18 months—had been most deplorable. The Government could not say that during that time any unpatriotic action had been taken by bon. Members on his side of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] But at that moment they did not know what the policy of the Government was either in regard to Armenia or in regard to Crete. ["Hear, hear!"] In the last 12 months they had heard the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs say at least 40 times that these questions were being carefully considered by the Powers. Nothing had come of the negotiations of the Powers; they had not availed to prevent the shedding of Christian blood; all that they had done was to bring into odium and public contempt the Concert of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that there had been a piratical expedition on the part of Greece. Did not the hon. Member know that the essence of a piratical expedition was that it must be an expedition for which no Government made itself: responsible? In the present instance the Hellenic Government had made itself responsible in circumstances reflecting the greatest honour upon it. [Cheers.] Let them consider for a moment what was the position of the Greeks. Their kinsmen, men of their own blood, were in an island some 60 miles from their own coast. These kinsmen of theirs had for the last 70 years been striving for freedom in various ways. They had fought for it repeatedly, and took part in the Greek war of independence, but were not allowed to share the fruits of victory. They had been treated in a manner which could hardly bear recital, and what had they now at last risen for? It was to defend their wives and daughters against nameless outrages, to prevent their homes from being desolated and themselves from being slaughtered without pity by the same race that had perpetrated the atrocities in Armenia. Those were the reasons of the action of these men upon whom the guns of Her Majesty's ships had been firing. [Cheers.] The six Powers, afraid of one another, who had done nothing in Armenia, were content for some time to do nothing in connection with Crete. It was true that the six Powers did in August last succeed in getting a paper Constitution for Crete from the Turks, but that Constitution was only worth the paper it was written on—nothing more. These brave Powers never sent troops to Canea and the other towns of Crete when massacres were going on, but they interfered as soon as the Greeks landed. He should think that the Greeks had come to the conclusion that the Concert of Europe was contemptible; at any rate they were not afraid to risk shedding their blood in support of men of their own race, men belonging to the most famous race in Europe, who saved civilisation against Oriental attack 2,300 years ago. [Cheers.] Every gallant man must desire that the legitimate aspiration for amalgamation on the part of Greece and Crete should be fulfilled, whenever its fulfilment should be possible consistently with European peace and order. [" Hear, hear!"] The Opposition had not been unreasonable in their conduct. Last autumn it was pointed out with much force by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech which had a great effect upon the agitation then begun, that we could not operate effectually in a military or naval sense to assist the Armenians, and immediately it was seen that further agitation would draw the country into danger without doing real good to the wretched Armenians the Opposition suppressed—perhaps too much—["hear, hear!"]—the feelings with which they were inspired. But then we did not take the part of the Turks. What was being done now was something quite different, and the participation of our ships in the matter was an indelible disgrace to the British Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Their ships had fired upon poor, wretched people who had risen for no other purpose than to defend their homes, their wives, and children. [Cheers] Those were the people upon whom the Government had fired, and it was an unworthy act and an unmanly duty to impose on British seamen. [Cheers.] He deeply regretted it, and he feared that it would result in the degradation of the great name and fame of this country in the eyes of Europe and of the people of the East. The First Lord of the Treasury had suggested,—

"Here are we entering upon three towns; is it to be tolerated that the insurgents shall come in and tire on towns where our flag is flying?"

But was it the case that the Government were allowing the Turks to fire from within those ramparts on the insurgents? [Cheers.] It could not be denied that the Turks were doing this. What was the position? It was that we, the British Power, by means of our Navy and Marines, were holding these three towns and allowing the Turks to sally out and fire on the insurgents when the latter approached to return the fire—which, he hoped they would always continue to do. [Cheers.] No one would satisfy the average Englishman, Scotchman, or Irishman that this was a worthy or a respectable thing for a great Power like this to do. The Leader of the Opposition had spoken in a manner which must have attracted the attention and the respect of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was our duty to have remained neutral, at all events until after the future of Crete had been settled, and not to take any aggressive action against Greece until that time had arrived. He understood that his right hon. Friend was limiting his observations to the point which was necessary to raise for the moment. For his own part, however, he declared that, whether arrangements were made or not, if at any time in respect of this matter the British Government was found attacking Greece, whether before or after any such arrangement, he for one—and he believed there were a great many other hon. Members—would object in the strongest possible way. [Cheers.] If we could not be saviours, let us not be executioners. [Cheers.] What the terror might be that seemed to haunt the right hon. Gentleman and the Govern- ment he could not say, nor did he deny the great responsibility of his position or seek to ignore the difficulties of the position; yet, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that all the Powers were most anxious to avoid war, somehow we might find ourselves embarked in a war. He accepted the statement of fact, and did not seek to question it; but it was a very curious situation. At all events, this was clear—that the peace of Europe would not be improved by taking up the position of firing on the insurgents in Crete; that could do nothing to improve the prospects of peace. [Cheers.] It seemed to be a most strange thing that there were no materials, no details, in the hands of the Government, although the incidents took place on Saturday.

They took place yesterday.

said if this was the case they must put up with the want of information.

How did the Daily News know about it?

said at any rate this fact was true, that under some orders—they did not know what—British ships had fired on these unhappy insurgents, whose cause was as sacred, as honourable, as that which any men had ever risen to defend by arms. [Cheers.] He expressed his deep regret that not a word had been said to show regret for this action, which he thought would have far-reaching consequences, not only in respect of the Government themselves, but because it would leave a lasting stain on the reputation of this country. [Cheers.]

I do not suppose that it is the intention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite first to misrepresent what has taken place and then to express their indignation about it. We have a few particulars, and I can place before the House real facts as to what took place. The incident is, of course, to be regretted—[ironical laughter]—everyone must regret that an incident of this kind should have been necessary. But the fact was that time after time the insurgents had been warned that they were not to advance to such a point where their guns would command the town. In that town there would be various detachments of the allied Powers, and if the insurgents placed their guns where they intended to place them they would have been in command of the spots where the allied forces had been placed. In these circumstances, day after clay a council of Admirals urged the insurgents and Colonel Vassos not to advance beyond certain points. They showed as much patience and forbearance as it was their duty to show in such circumstances, because it was admitted that the great object should be to prevent a shot from being tired. Notwithstanding all the remonstrances, or possibly in order to force the situation, the insurgents disregarded what had been done by the allied commanders and took up those positions which would have commanded the town. The right hon. Gentleman says that we attempted to put down the insurrection. I say it is a ridiculous exaggeration. [Cheers.] It is not a misrepresentation, and there was no object—