MR. FLYNN rose to support the Motion, when

MR. J. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick) claimed to move, "That the question be now put."

*MR. SPEAKER declined then to put the Question.

MR. FLYNN, continuing, said, the hon. Member who had last spoken had made out a clear case. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given away his entire argument when he said that Scotland was getting

out strictly, because the nine-eightieths was not based upon the original grant of this year but upon the grant of last year without taking the Supplementary Estimates into account at all. The present Treasury had given Ireland her nineeightieths of the original grant for this year, which represented a much larger sum than if based on the Estimate of the preceding year, and he promised the other Gentlemen they would also take into consideration Ireland's share of the Supplementary Estimates. Ireland had had from the present Government the eleven-eightieths; if that was so, Ireland whole of her share. They had gone demanded her nine-eightieths, to which even further than that. Under the new she was entitled. The Scotch Act and system they had given her everything the Irish Act were worded exactly alike, asked for, but what they did not do was the only difference being in the figures. to undo the work of the late Govern- In 1891 the then Chancellor of the ment. The late Government, or the Exchequer, who was now the First Lord late Parliament, refused to give to of the Admiralty, in answer to a quesIreland her fair share as the hon. Mem- tion, referred an hon. Member to the ber had said. That might be so or not, term 144 for an indication of the manbut Ireland had the money in strict ner in which the percentages 80, 11 and accordance with the Act, and it was 5 were originally arrived at, and said utterly impossible that the Government that in adapting this to the distribution could re-open the account. He thought of the Education Grant they had been if there was any blame in the matter it guided not only by the calculations from must rest entirely on their predecessors which the original percentages were deand not on the present Treasury, which rived, but also from recent inquiries had provided not only for this year but which confirmed the accuracy of the for future years. figures. They contended that that stateMR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid) ment was a Parliamentary contract. said, they were told that they were He intended to be very brief, and he giving nine-eightieths of the English promised the House that he would not grant to Ireland, and eleven-eightieths in occupy more than a few minutes in the coming year to Scotland. Why making his remarks. The figures showed were they giving that in the coming that Ireland had, he would not say year? What right had they to give it been defrauded of, but underpaid some unless an Act of Parliament authorised £32,000 per annum in respect of her them to give it? [Ironical cheers.] share of the Education Grant. It was They could not go beyond the present no sufficient answer for the right hon. year. They did not get the money, and Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury then they were asked, "Why didn't to say that it was the fault of the Liberal you get it?" ["Hear, hear!"] This Party that this injustice had been done. was not a Party question. It was all a Whether it was the fault of the Liberal matter of simple calculation. It would Party or of the Tory Party, he did not be found that Scotland had not got care-all he knew, was that the injustice within about £30,000 of the amount she had been committed, and therefore, he really ought to have got for these fee said, "a plague on both your houses." grants. He objected altogether to its If the National Board of Ireland had being said that it was the duty of the not made its demands upon the Treasury, Liberal Government when in power to in accordance with the provisions of the carry out this undertaking; it was not Act of Parliament, that certainly was a Party question. According to the not the fault of the Irish people. Government's own interpretation of this Act, it was clear that Scotland had not got that amount which she ought to have got.

All

*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! these matters which the hon. Member is discussing have been already dealt with.

MR. FLYNN said, that he did not desire to address the House at any undue length, but he suggested that either the right hon. Gentleman should agree that the Treasury should pay over to Ireland her fair share of the grant, or else that the matter should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland would give the House an assurance that he had some regard for Irish Education, and would not allow the interests of Ireland to be overborne by the unfair and unjust action of the Treasury.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY rose in his place, and claimed to move- "That the Question be now put."

*MR. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members will be of opinion that the subject has been sufficiently discussed, and that it will be unnecessary that the Closure should be applied.

SUPPLY [27TH MARCH].
Resolutions reported;

Resolutions read a second time :

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896-7.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,133,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge stores, which will come in course of payment for the supply and repair of warlike and other during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,007,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and expenditure for Royal Engineer works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March

1897."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £119,900, be

granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £51,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for sundry miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year

Another HON. MEMBER rose to speak, ending on the 31st day of March 1897." whereupon,

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,357,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge

Question put, "That the Question be for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the now put."

in-pensioners thereof, of out-pensions, of the
maintenance of lunatics for whom pensions are
not drawn, and of gratuities awarded in com-
mutation and in lieu of pensions, of rewards for
meritorious services, of Victoria Cross pensions,
and of pensions to the widows and children of
Warrant Officers, which will come in course of
payment during the year ending on the 31st day
of March 1897."

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART-
MENTS, 1896-7 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,350,018,
be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or

[Mr. J. STUART-WORTLEY in the Chair.] towards defraying the charges for the following

(In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART

MENTS, 1896-7.

CLASS I.

Motion made, and Question proposed:

"That a sum, not exceeding £26,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."

Committee report Progress; to sit upon Thursday, 9th April.

Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, viz. :

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

MR. LABOUCHERE rose to call attention to the explanations of the Government in regard to the Soudan expedition. With regard to the reasons at Southport, he compared the Colonial alleged for the expedition, he said the answers of the Under Secretary were so diplomatic that he really could not understand the position of Lord Cromer in the matter. He asked the right hon.

Secretary to Alexander the Great. [Laughter.] At the end of the Debate the Leader of the House said we meant to go as far as we could, and where we went we intended to stay. But still the

It

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

had got into regarding that expedition ? The Under Secretary of State admitted that France did not approve of their Y