It was a Conservative Government.

continued, that he did not care what Government hurried it through; all the same, it was a scandalous proceeding. As to this Part VI. he was prepared to deal with it in detail if necessary; but, in the first instance, he would move the Motion standing in his name. The Burgh Police Act, passed under the circumstances he had referred to, contained absurdities equally glaring, whatever Government passed it; while the present Government, if they gave their sanction to the present Bill, could not escape the charge that they had allowed the corporation to embody in a private Bill provisions contrary to those of the general law. Many of these clauses were so absurd that, when the House dealt with them seriatim, he hoped it would see its way to omitting many of them from the Bill. The Motion he made was not intended to preclude the discussion of the other Amendments on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

said, that as he was Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, it might be convenient if at that moment he said a few words on behalf of the Committee. His right hon. Friend based his attack on the Bill in its present form, and the Committee which passed it, on the allegation that Clause 24, as it had emerged from the Committee, would alter the law which had hitherto governed judicial appointments in this country, and he had suggested that if the Corporation of the city of Glasgow were inclined to maladminister the affairs of that great city, they could practically coerce their stipendiary magistrate. His right hon. Friend had entirely overlooked Sub-section 9 of that clause, which made any such action on the part of the Corporation of Glasgow absolutely impossible, for the simple reason that it provided that the stipendiary magistrate, when appointed, should hold his office during Her Majesty's pleasure. So it would be impossible for the Corporation, even if so minded, to remove him.

interposing, said, he did not suggest that under the Bill the Corporation would be empowered to dismiss the stipendiary, but the Corporation might submit him to much inconvenience.

said, he certainly understood his right hon. Friend to say that the practice of Parliament had been to make these judicial appointments absolutely independent of the control of the local authorities. There was all the difference in the world between giving the Corporation powers to arrange the duties of the magistrate, and giving power to interfere with the discharge of his duties as to make them unpleasant for him. The right hon. Gentleman had paid testimony to the services the Lord Advocate rendered to the Committee which considered the Bill. As a rule the Police and Sanitary Committee, in dealing with Bills concerning England and Wales, were favoured with the presence of a representative of the department affected—the Home Office, the Local Government Board, or whatever it might be—whose advice was extremely useful; who watched the Bill in conjunction with the Committee, and gave them information as to the effect of the clauses and proposals of the Bill as compared with the general law. But where a Bill affecting Scotland or Ireland was before the Committee, the Committee was left to its own resources. In reference, however, to the Bill the House was now discussing, it seemed desirable that the Committee should have expert assistance from the Scotch Office, and the Secretary for Scotland was good enough to accede to his request that the Lord Advocate should attend the sittings of the Committee and give the benefit of his experience and advice. No doubt the Bill effected some change in the general law of Scotland. Upon what evidence, it might be asked, was the change made? This was not a matter on which local evidence could be invited from Glasgow, or upon which evidence from the Glasgow Corporation would have been of the slightest assistance to the Committee. The question involved was whether the administration of the law in the city of Glasgow by the stipendiary magistrate would be likely to be injuriously affected by the adoption of the proposals contained in the Bill, and he submitted with great respect to the House, that it was impossible for the Committee to have gone to a higher or more trustworthy source for evidence on a point of that important and complicated character than to the head of the Scotch Bar. He was quite confident—and he knew nothing of the feeling for or against this Bill in the locality—that, if in the opinion of the Lord Advocate the adoption of the provisions of the Bill would be injurious to the efficient and pure administration of the law, or would tend, in the smallest degree, to diminish the absolute independence of the stipendiary, no man worthy to be Lord Advocate—still less the right hon. Gentleman who now filled that position—would have hesitated to have advised the Committee not to assent to the proposals of the Corporation, and, most unquestionably, the Committee would have resisted those proposals. With regard to the second charge against the Bill, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not object so much to the action of the Committee as to the action of the late Conservative Government, in passing a Bill which, he said, was ill digested. His right hon. Friend had found great difficulty in digesting much that took place in the last Parliament, but seemed to find greater difficulty in digesting some of the measures of the present Parliament. At all events, what blame there might be rested on the fact that the Corporation of Glasgow desired to possess, in a limited degree, the powers conferred by Statute upon other localities, and the Committee had an assurance from the head of the Scotch Bar and a member of the Scotch Executive, that this was reasonable and might be fairly assented to. He respectfully asked the House, having regard to the fact that this Bill was carefully considered, and that the Committee had the exceptional benefit of the advice of the Lord Advocate, whether it would be wise to recommit the Bill in order that the Committee upstairs might be called upon, by the action of the House, to reverse the decision at which he could assure the House they arrived after deliberate inquiry, in no sort of way hostile, in the full belief that the powers asked for might be fairly conceded to one of the geatest corporations in the kingdom. Was it not reasonable that the Committee to which the Bill was referred should have some regard for demands of the kind when made by bodies so important and trustworthy as they believed the Corporation of the city of Glasgow to be?

said, he would not say a word against the Committee or the Lord Advocate. No one had more respect for the qualities of the Lord Advocate than himself. But he did not think his action conclusive in this matter. He seconded the Motion that he might have an opportunity, on behalf of those who administered the law, of insisting on the dignity of the administration of the law, and the independence of judicial officers being preserved, as it would not be by this Bill. The Bill gave the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in Scotland to the Secretary for Scotland. In England, the appointment was always in the name of Her Majesty. The Vote might be passed by with the comment that he did not know why this had been done. Clause 1 of the Bill he made no objection to. Clause 2 provided that, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, the Corporation might define, and, from time to time, add to or vary the duties of the stipendiary magistrate. There was no limit here to the extent to which his duties might be added to. By Section 13, the Corporation might, from time to time, determine the court or courts in which the stipendiary might act, and the number of the sittings of each court or courts. Here the intervention of the Secretary for Scotland, for the stependiary's protection, was not provided—he was made absolutely the servant of the Corporation. He joined in the tribute that had been paid to the Corporation of Glasgow, but he knew that in many corporations there were little jealousies, and schemes; and slights were sometimes put upon a man. If they wanted to get a man out of his office they could make it disagreeable for him, or put some slight upon him. It was true the stipendiary was protected so far as removal from his position was concerned by a later clause. When appointed, he was presumed to be able to discharge his duties efficiently and to be master of himself and his court. He would ask the Lord Advocate whether a member of the Bar who was appointed a stipendiary magistrate, and who was presumably duly qualified for his position, ought to be subject to the ruling of the town clerk of the corporation. He submitted that a stipendiary magistrate when he was appointed ought to be subject to no master, and that his actions should be regulated by his own conscience alone. Clause 5, which proposed to provide that a stipendiary magistrate should not be permitted to discharge any other duties than those which appertained to his own office was in his view a most unnecessary one, because no one would suppose that a stipendiary magistrate could perform any other duties than those imposed upon him by his office. The mere fact that a stipendiary magistrate was appointed to his office implied that he undertook to discharge all the duties that were imposed upon him by statute, and that he would devote his whole time to the performance of those duties. Holding, as he did, an office akin to that of a stipendiary magistracy, he felt the necessity of being protected against the idea that might be entertained in mean minds that a magistrate might take a certain course in order to keep his masters in good temper.

Order, order! I was not aware until this moment that the clause that, has been discussed, with reference to the recommittal of the Bill, was the same Clause 24 with regard to which there is a Motion on the Paper. I therefore think that it would be more convenient if the discussion were continued on the Motion to leave out Clause 24.

asked leave in the circumstances to withdraw his Amendment.

seconded the Amendment. He said that, during his experience, there had never been any friction between the Court and the municipality of the city in which he had resided, but he was not sure that that would have been the case if the judicial office had been in any way under the control of the Corporation. The promoters of this Bill had three objects, and he thought the House would be satisfied that none of those objects were necessary or desirable. They wished, first, to provide for the appointment of stipendiaries in Glasgow; that was a good object, he admitted, but there was no need to come to Parliament for that, because the Act of 1875 already gave that power. The promoters asked, secondly, to define the duties of the stipendiaries to be appointed, and that was entirely unobjectionable, but they did not propose to define the duties in the Act of Parliament, but that Parliament should delegate to the Corporation the power to define the duties of the stipendiaries. That was not a very material drawback to the Bill, because to do so they had to apply for the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. They desired, thirdly, to determine the courts in which the stipendiaries were to sit, which in itself was also an unobjectionable proposal, but they did not ask the House to do it, but to delegate to the Corporation of Glasgow the determination of the courts (and the time and place) where the stipendiaries were to sit. And these things the Corporation seeks power to do without the sanction of the Secretary of State. If the Bill were passed as it stood it would indefinitely increase the burden of work which might be thrown on the stipendiary magistrates, and the Corporation might capriciously send stipendiaries east, west, north, or south, to any of the nine courts. The judge ought to be as independent of the prosecutor as he was of the accused.

said, although this was not a Government Bill, as repeated reference had been made to himself in the course of the discussion, he thought it was right to explain his views. The Bill, as it had come from the Committee, had been attacked on several grounds. His hon. Friend the member for Mid Lanark had spoken of what he called the general law of Scotland in regard to the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. There was no such general law. In the Act of 1875, the main object of which was to regulate the Sheriffs' Courts, power was given to appoint a police magistrate for Glasgow. But that was a unique and solitary provision in the law of Scotland at that time. That was the state of matters down to 1892, when authority was given for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates by police burghs if they chose to exercise it. But that Act did not apply to Glasgow, and, therefore, Glasgow was not affected by it, though the city might have adopted it if it had chosen. The first complaint made by his hon. Friend was as to the method of appointing stipendiary magistrates, and he suggested that all officers of that class should be appointed by the Crown. But he would remind his hon. Friend that in the Act of 1875 the appointment of the stipendiary magistrate for Glasgow was vested in one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and by the Statute creating the office the Secretary for Scotland, he took the place of the Secretary of State in that matter. The Police Act provided that the Secretary for Scotland was to appoint the burgh police stipendiary. The next point referred to by his hon. Friend was, that the Bill gave power to the Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, to vary the duties of the magistrate. It was very necessary that some one should have that power. The Corporation, however, would merely suggest what the changes should be, and their suggestion would be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, who would thus have the final and effective voice in the matter. Inconvenience had been found to arise in Glasgow from the want of such power. Then it was said that the Corporation would have the power to determine the particular Courts in which the stipendiary magistrate should sit. That proposal arose from the fact that there were nine Police Courts, which were usually presided over by unpaid magistrates. A bailie might be absent from one of them, and it was only reasonable that provision should be made for the stipendiary taking the business of the Court under such circumstances. Again, complaint was made that the Bill would place a judicial officer under the Corporation. He should be extremely cautious against doing anything of that kind, and he ventured to say that no hon. Member attached more importance to the independence and the purity of the Bench than he did; but to give power to regulate the attendance of a stipendiary at a particular court on a particular day involved no interference whatever with his absolute independence. He submitted that there was no force whatever in the objections that had been urged against the Bill.

said, they had two Acts permitting the creation of stipendiary magistrates for Scotland, and there was not a single stipendiary in the country at the present time. There had never been but one in Scotland, and he was appointed under the Act of 1875, and experience of the working of that Act showed the Glasgow Corporation that there were certain points which required amendment, and they came to the House to obtain it by this Bill. The great fault found in the Bill by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark was—that it did not provide for a pension for the stipendiary magistrate. He knew something of the people of Glasgow, but he did not know that they were particularly anxious to give pensions to their officials. The question of granting pensions to officials was one which must be decided on general grounds, and the fact that the Bill did not provide for a pension to the stipendiary magistrate in this instance was no justification of the hon. Member's very severe denunciation of the measure. It must be remembered that citizen magistrates were everywhere performing the duties it was proposed to hand over to stipendiaries, and the reason why they now came to the House was, that they felt that trained lawyers were more competent to determine certain cases than they were, and they asked for the provision in question in the interest of the administration of justice. It was said that this was an innovation in the case of the sole stipendiary that had ever been appointed in Scotland; that it was for the first time intended that his duties should be varied according to the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland. As a matter of fact, exactly the same thing was intended when the late Stipendiary Magistrate was appointed in Glasgow. This was clearly shown by the terms of the Commission under which the then Home Secretary, Sir Richard Cross, appointed him, which declared that the appointment was made subject to such regulations as the Home Secretary might make under any powers which might be conferred upon him by subsequent legislation. But the general legislation which Lord Cross contemplated did not take place, and when it was attempted to obtain the intermediation of the Secretary of State, it was found that he had no power to act. It was for the purpose of remedying that state of things, and to confer on the Secretary for Scotland the powers which Lord Cross hoped to have obtained, that this provision had been introduced. There was not the smallest reason for dealing with this clause otherwise than as with the rest of the Bill. It had passed the strongest Committee in the House and had received the imprimatur of the highest authority. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would reject the Amendment.

said, that there was only one point which had not received an absolute answer, namely, the assertion that the duties of Stipendiary Magistrates had not been dealt with in private Acts. In the Manchester Stipendiary Justices Act, 1878, the duties of Stipendiary Magistrates in Manchester were clearly defined, and what had been done in England might surely be allowed in Scotland. It was not, he thought, too much to ask that the same privileges as had been allowed by Parliament in the case of Manchester should be now extended to Scotland.

was proceeding to put the Question, when

intimated, that the Corporation of Glasgow would be quite willing to assent to that.

proposed to withdraw his Amendment, and that the further discussion of the Bill should be deferred until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that for the purpose of preventing the formation of a School Board, the Malling Board of Guardians have voted the sum of £50 to the Enlargement Fund of the West Mailing National Schools, and also —5 a year in respect to the pauper children attending the school, the school being in receipt of a free grant; arid, whether the Local Government Board has given its sanction to such payments?

The Local Government Board have not sanctioned the payments of the sums referred to. They have informed the Guardians that they are not aware of any authority under which the proposed contributions can legally be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Rose Hannah Loach, of 86, Park Street, Oldbury, who recently entered the Oldbury Smallpox Hospital, Portway Road, with her child Martha, aged five months, who was suffering from confluent smallpox; whether he is aware that Mrs. Loach, having never been vaccinated or had smallpox, resisted the importunities of the Sanitary Inspector and medical man at the hospital, who urged her to be vaccinated, stating that she had seen her husband and children take smallpox after vaccination; and that Mrs. Loach was discharged from the hospital on the death of her infant, after close association with the worst forms of smallpox, unvaccinated and free from smallpox; and, whether it is the duty of officials at smallpox hospitals to put such pressure on persons who may object to vaccination as useless and dangerous?

I am informed that the child referred to, who was about four months old, was suffering from smallpox in a small house where arrangements for isolation were impracticable, and where three cases of smallpox had previously occurred. The mother refused to allow the child to be sent to the Smallpox Hospital unless she was received in the hospital with the child. The Sanitary Inspector endeavoured to persuade her to be vaccinated before being taken to the hospital, but she refused, and the mother with her child was then admitted to the hospital. She was, it is stated, provided with a cottage which was some distance from the main buildings where the chief of the cases were. The utmost was done to prevent her from mixing with the other cases in the hospital, and after the death of the child, the mother, after a bath and her clothing having been properly disinfected, returned to her home. I see no ground for thinking that the officers did more than it was their duty to do in the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Enagh Lough, from which it is proposed to obtain water for the proposed Asylum for Londonderry County, is a stagnant pond used by the neighbouring farmers for damming flax in, and that the water is totally unfit for human use; and whether, in face of the present want of water at the City Supply and proposals to fetch water some 20 miles to supply the City, the Government will give their sanction for building the asylum where proposed at Gransha?

It has been decided by the Board of Control to build the new Londonderry Asylum at Gransha, provided the Board is satisfied as to the sufficiency and purity of the water supply. A very competent expert has prepared a scheme by which the asylum will obtain an excellent water supply from the Waterside Reservoir. The Board is still in communication with the Corporation of Derry as to the legal powers vested in the Corporation to increase the Waterside Reservoir so as to yield a sufficient supply under this scheme for the asylum. It may be noted that the supply for the Waterside suburb is quite distinct from the supply of Derry City proper; the quality and quantity of which have been made the subject of unfavourable comment. The proposal to use the Lough Enagh water has been abandoned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when will an examination under Code (Section) 1383 be held for county inspectors clerks?

The Inspector General informs me that no date has been definitely fixed for an examination under this section of the Code, but that one will probably soon be held.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Inspector General's circular of 1887 cancelling past unfavourable records in the Royal Irish Constabulary has been invariably acted on; and, if not, in what cases; and, was it not intended at the time to be of universal application?

The circular of 1887 referred to has been, so far as the Inspector General is aware, invariably acted on. It is not intended to be of universal application, as the terms of it shew. It only cancels unfavourable records so far as they would affect subsequent punishments or the grants of pensions or gratuities. It was not intended to apply to other matters, such as promotion or the comparison in other cases of one man's claim with another.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether local authorities in Ireland who have adopted the Compulsory Education Act, appointed school attendance officers, and included the expenses in their estimates, can now pay these expenses without being surcharged by the Local Government auditor?

I am informed that in no case in which the expenses mentioned have been paid, save in the case of Belturbet, the circumstance respecting which I explained in answer to a question on the 29th April, has there been a surcharge by the auditors.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the systematic sale of large quantities of unwholesome meat just beyond the area supervised by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London; whether he has considered the letter of Dr. Sedgwick Saunders, Food Analyst to the Commissioners, written in March of this year, in which he states that the sale of meat, which would be at once condemned as unfit for food by any competent meat inspectors, goes on openly in the shops referred to; that this outside market is in the area of the Holborn Board of Works, who have not sufficient trained inspectors to examine the meat, or any apparatus for dealing with it when it is condemned; and that, although the Commissioners of Sewers have made proposals to the Holborn District Board of Works to take over, for a time, the inspection of meat in the implicated area, the Holborn Board has neither accepted the offer nor dealt with the evil in any other way; and whether, in view of the fact that this meat is distributed over the Metropolis, involving great risk to the people who buy the worst of it in the street markets, where it is sold as cheap meat, he will use his influence with the Holborn Board of Works to insure efficient inspection of all the meat sold within their area, either in the way proposed by the Commissioners of Sewers or in some other way?

I have no direct information on this subject, and the letter of Dr. Saunders has not been communicated to me. I have, however, been informed by the Holborn District Board that, on every occasion when complaints have been made to them by inspectors under the Commissioners of Sewers, of the nature referred to, they have done their best to investigate them, and have called for evidence to substantiate the charge, but that on no one occasion has evidence worthy of the name been put forward.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the excursion steamer Davwar, with 700 passengers aboard, mostly ladies and children, from Campbeltown to Belfast, ran ashore during a fog on Briggs Reef at Groomsport, near Donaghadee, on the morning of the 7th instant; whether, seeing that Briggs Reef is within a few miles of Mew Island, which the steamer had to pass, he will direct the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners to the fact that if a proper fog signal had been on Mew Island, the lives of these passengers would not have been so endangered; and whether anything has yet been done by the Commissioners since the Treasury grant, in the way of making the long-promised tests as to the best signals to be used on Mew Island? Also, whether his attention has been called to the loss of the Belfast steam tug Ranger, when going to the assistance of the stranded steamer Davwar on the 7th instant; and whether he will inquire if the loss was due to collision with a submerged vessel wrecked there some time ago; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of taking some means to have this wreck marked in order to warn mariners of the danger?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he is aware that the tug Ranger, while assisting the steamer Davwar, stranded on the Briggs Reef in Belfast Lough on Saturday last, struck upon the stern-post of the steamer Emily, which was wrecked on the reef some years ago and foundered; (2) whether this is the same wreck on which the smack Betsy struck and was lost during the winter of 1893–94, and which the Board of Irish Lights then refused to remove, asserting that it did not constitute a danger to navigation; (3) whether he is aware that the managers of the Groomsport Lifeboat have frequently called attention to the risk which would be incurred by their crew if called upon to assist a vessel in distress in that part of the lough from this invisible danger; and (4) whether, in view of the proof now given that this wreck does constitute a serious danger to life and property, he will take immediate steps to compel the Board of Irish Lights to remove it?

; The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into the casualty to the Davwar, and, pending the result of such inquiry, I can express no opinion as to the cause of the casualty. The experiments referred to in respect of the Mew Island siren have now been completed (not, however, under a Treasury grant, but at the expense of the Mercantile Marine Fund). A report of the result is before the Trinity House in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. As regards the question of the hon. Member for North Down, I had better not express an opinion on the point raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 till I see the report of the inquiry. If it should appear that a wreck does exist, the Irish Lights Board will, doubtless, remove it; should they fail to do so it would clearly be the duty of the Board of Trade to call their attention to the need of doing so. An official inquiry has been ordered into the loss of the steam tug Ranger, and until the report of the inquiry is received, I am unable to express any opinion as to the cause of the casualty.

asked whether the Irish Board of Lights had refused to remove this obstacle.

I am not aware of that, but I will inquire. If they have refused, it must have been because they thought it was not a danger to navigation. If it should turn out from this inquiry that it is a danger to navigation, they will not then, I take it, persist in their view.

said, the fact that two vessels had been lost at this place within the past year proved the danger.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a sworn inquiry will be granted into the grave charges alleged against Mr. Dawson, Petty Sessions Clerk, Newcastle West. County Limerick, viz.: neglect of duty, misappropriation of the public funds, canvassing magistrates for decisions in favour of parties in whom he was personally interested, and inducing a magistrate to refuse information in a case of serious assault, as evidence in support of these charges can be given at such an inquiry by magistrates of the district and respectable residents of Newcastle West?

I am advised that it is open to any person to prefer a charge against a Clerk of Petty Sessions either to the Lord Lieutenant or to the magistrates of the district. If such a charge be definitely preferred to the Lord Lieutenant against the Petty Sessions Clerk referred to in the question, immediate steps will be taken to inquire into it. But such an inquiry would not, I understand, be on oath, as there is no power in the Lord Lieutenant to order a sworn inquiry in such cases.

asked whether it was not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to dismiss this official when these charges were made against him?

I can give no answer except that which I have already given.

Is it true that this gentleman has been charged with the misappropriation of funds?

Various charges have from time to time been brought against him, and he has twice or thrice been reinstated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when Imperial Service troops, the Kashmir-Native Contingent, who are still armed with obsolete Sniders, are to receive the Martini?

Martini-Henry rifles have been issued to the Infantry, which forms the great majority of the Kashmir Imperial Service force. I am not able to say at what date they will be issued to the Cavalry, whose numbers are, relatively, very small.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, appointed to consider the recommendation of Lord Jersey as Imperial delegate to the Ottawa Conference with respect to the subsidising of a first line of mail steamers between Great Britain and Canada, is likely to be presented; and, whether the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived will, in view of the great importance of this question to Imperial and Colonial interests, be promptly communicated to the House?

That portion of Lord Jersey's Report on the Ottawa Conference which related to the Mail question was referred by Her Majesty's Government to an Inter-Departmental Committee, which is considering the question arising from the approaching termination of the Mail Contracts to Australia and the East. The deliberations of the Committee must necessarily take some time; as many subjects before them refer to matters of the highest importance to our Indian possessions and the Australian Colonies.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor has considered, and arrived at any determination with respect to, the emphatic contradiction given by Mr. P. Crowe, J.P., to certain allegations concerning his action on the bench at the Cashel Quarter Sessions in February last?

The Lord Chancellor informs me he is perfectly satisfied with the statement made by the gentleman referred to in the question. It is only right to add that the chairman of Quarter Sessions, in a letter addressed by him to Mr. Crowe, stated that the latter did not, on the occasion to which this incident refers, remark that he had had an interview with the appellant, and that he intended doing all in his power to get him off, or that Mr. Crowe protested against affirming the decision of the Justices at Petty Sessions; on the contrary, he expressed to the Chairman his approval of the Justices decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any agreement has been come to between the Irish Government and the National Commissioners of Education with regard the Christian Brothers' Schools?

I can only say, in answer to the hon. Member's question, that the correspondence between the Irish Government and the National Education Commissioners is rapidly approaching a final stage. By "rapidly" I mean that it will be concluded within a few days. Whether it will end in an agreement or not it would be premature for me to say.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a strong feeling in Ireland that this question ought to have been settled within the last two or three years.

I am quite aware of the strong feeling. But it is much more easy to entertain a strong feeling than to find a means of settlement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Governor has yet been appointed for New South Wales; and, if not, whether the appointment will be immediately made, in view of the strong feeling that the position of Governor should not be left vacant for so many months?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is now in a position to state whether any appointment to the Governorship of New South Wales has been made?

No statement can be made on the subject at present. But in regard to the terms of the question of the hon. Member for East Clare, it may be pointed out that the vacancy only occurred three months ago, quite unexpectedly, and that in an appointment of this importance many considerations have to be weighed, and it cannot be, and should not be, hurriedly filled up.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman could give the House an assurance that one of the many considerations that would not weigh in this appointment would be a political consideration with regard to any particular seat?

asked whether the appointment had been offered to a Member of the House?

I think the question of the hon. Member for Preston needs no answer. I regret very much that my hon. Friend (Mr. Sydney Buxton) will not be well enough to be present this week, and in his absence I cannot make any further statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in December of last year, a Petition was received from the Ridley Clerks of the Second Division asking for a revision of their scheme of salary; and as nearly six months have now elapsed since its receipt, whether a reply can be given immediately; and whether, in the consideration of this Petition, the Treasury will endeavour to remedy the system which exists in the Government service whereby a junior clerk of the Playfair Second Division, who may be only two years senior to a clerk of the Ridley Second Division, receives a salary of over £50 a year more than the latter?

A reply will shortly be given to the Petition, which was duly received. The salary of the Second Division was fixed in 1890, after very full consideration by the Royal Commission. The Government has no intention of altering it. The scale previously in force has been given to no one since employed, but it cannot be taken away from clerks then serving. A clerk on the new scale who serves till he is 65 will have received in salary £1,700 more than if he had been paid on the old scale.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that serious damage has been done to residential property at Hartlepool by the firing of a big gun from the Lighthouse Battery, part of which is at a distance of less than 100 feet from the battery; and that the lighthouse, which is close to the battery, is endangered thereby; and whether, as it is against War Office regulations to practice with heavy artillery so close to dwelling houses, he will give instructions to discontinue the firing?

Reports received from Hartlepool show that beyond breaking a few panes of glass, scarcely any damage was done to the lighthouse. The lantern was in no way injured, and the lighthouse cannot be said to be in any danger. As regards any damage to houses in the neighbourhood, I may say only one complaint has been received, by the artillery at Tynemouth preferring a claim for 7s.; but the hon. Member has placed in my hands a letter from a resident giving particulars into which I will direct full inquiry to be made. There is no War Office Regulation governing practice with guns near dwelling houses, but when this gun was placed in the battery it was agreed with the Commissioners of the Port of Hartlepool that it should only be fired eight times in the year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the normal clerical establishment of all the departments of the Admiralty have yet been sent to the Treasury; and, if not, when they will be sent; and whether any promotion which may ensue on the sanction of these establishments will take effect from the same date as those lately made in the Accountant General's Department; and, if not, from what date?

Proposals as regards the clerical establishment of the Admiralty will be before the Treasury a few days hence. Promotions to staff clerkships only take effect from the date of the Civil Service certificate in each case.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any legal standard of water in butter; whether Somerset House has fixed any such standard; and whether he is prepared to issue a circular to local authorities pointing out to them the law in this matter?

The Select Committee on the adulteration of food products have not yet reported. From the evidence before them it appears that there is no legal standard of water in butter, and Somerset House has not fixed any such standard. When the Committee have reported, I hope local authorities will be better informed on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the congestion in the promotion of the competitive prison clerks, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1886–90?

The actual number of competitive prison clerks, that is to say, clerks who entered under the present scheme of competitive examination, now serving is 76, 31 in the first class and 45 in the second. None of the first-class competitive clerks have attained their maximum, and of the second class only 23 have attained it. The matter has been frequently brought to my notice, and, after very carefully going into the whole question, I am unable to think that a real grievance exists. I will consider the question whether it is possible or desirable to lay the Report on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the War Office has received any complaints with respect to the quality of the black powder Lee-Metford rifle ammunition served out to the Militia for musketry practice; (2) whether he is aware that bullets are found which have dropped far short of the target, indicating by their condition that the propulsive force has been deficient; (3) whether any steps will be taken to test the quality of ammunition served out for class firing; and (4) whether there is any danger of ammunition of an equally imperfect character being issued for active service?

No complaints have been received, and nothing is known in the War Office of the dropped bullets referred to in the second paragraph. All the ammunition issued has passed proof satisfactorily, and is service ammunition. There have from time to time been complaints of isolated instances of dropped bullets during the time when the regular troops used black powder; but, so far as could be ascertained, such cases were due to individual errors in manufacture, which cannot, except by chance, be detected by inspection.

asked whether he might be allowed to show the right hon. Gentleman a bullet which had been fired and which had dropped short of the target?

doubted whether the mere production of a bullet could prove that it had fallen short of the target in consequence of insufficient propulsive force.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the unanimous resolution of the Congested Districts Board, and the expression of opinion in the House as to the necessity for increased financial and compulsory powers for the acquisition of land, for migration, and enlargement of small holdings in the congested districts, he will introduce a Bill this Session applying to Ireland the powers already exercised under the Scotch Crofters' Acts, and enabling the Land Commission, on the requisition of the Congested Districts Board, to undertake the direct purchase of suitable lands out of the funds at their disposal?

Under the 57th and 58th Vic., cap. 50, the Congested Districts Board are enabled to use the powers of the Lands Clauses Acts, excepting the provisions of such Acts relating to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement—that is, compulsorily. The Board are not empowered, however, to draw upon the funds of the Land Commission provided by the Purchase Acts, and the Board have no funds at their disposal for any purpose, except the yearly sum of, £41,250 and the two small fishery loans. The Board are aware that there are large tracts of land that could be used for the purposes of the enlargement of small holdings and the promotion of migration; but they are of opinion that a grant of additional funds to them would be necessary to give due effect to this important department of their work, and that they should also be armed with compulsory powers to acquire lands at their just value. The latter part of this question appears to have been framed under a misapprehension. The power for the enlargement of holdings conferred by the Crofters' Acts upon the Crofters' Commission is a power to make an order for a lease of additional land, subject to various conditions. I am informed that the Crofters' Commission has no power to take land compulsorily. A Bill proposing to confer such compulsory powers on the Congested Districts Board must necessarily, I fear, be calculated to occupy a good deal of time; and, in the circumstances, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject this Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that Mr. Shepstone removed all the books of the Swazi nation and papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland from the chief kraal to Pretoria, and has not returned them in spite of repeated requests from the king; if so, by what right does Mr. Shepstone retain these books and papers; and will the Government use their influence to secure their immediate return?

It is understood that the books and papers sent to Pretoria were those bearing on Mr. Shepstone's financial and other relations with the Swazi nation. They were sent to Pretoria with a view to a thorough investigation into Mr. Shepstone's financial transactions, which was desired by the Swazies. A Swazi deputation went to Pretoria to attend at the audit. It is understood that on completion of the audit the books and papers will be returned to Swaziland.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board out of what fund is a waywarden or surveyor of highways to be paid any balance due to him at the date of the transfer of the liabilities of the highway authority to the district council of a rural district; and can he make a highway rate for the purpose, and will such rate require allowance by justices; or can the parish council (or parish meeting in a parish where there is no parish council) include the payment of such balance in the expenses to be paid out of the Poor's Rate under Section 11 (4) of The Local Government Act, 1894; or is such balance a liability transferred to the district council under Section 25 (1), and to be defrayed as part of the general expenses of the council under Section 29 (a).

Where the powers of a highway authority are transferred to a rural district council, it appears to the Local Government Board that the rural district council may discharge any liabilities legally incurred by the highway authority. A waywarden or surveyor of highways would have no authority to levy a highway rate for the purpose mentioned in the question, and Section 11 (4) of the Local Government Act of 1894 would not apply to the case.

I beg to ask whether the district council will defray this liability out of general funds or out of a special rate levied on the highway districts?

That is rather a difficult point. I think an adjustment may be necessary under Section 68 of the Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if in a rural parish where the parish council (or parish meeting in a parish not having a council) has neither received nor paid money prior to the 31st March 1895 a financial statement will have to be prepared and audited by a district auditor; if a 5s. stamp will have to be impressed upon or affixed to such a financial statement in which neither receipts nor payments appear; and who is to attend the audit on behalf of the parish council or parish meeting?

When there are no payments or receipts there cannot be any audit. In such a case, however, the Auditor should be furnished through the posts with a statement under the hand of the chairman of the parish meeting, or of the chairman or clerk of the parish council, as the case may be, that there have been no payments or receipts.

Perhaps a simple certificate will be sufficient, and there will be no necessity for the return of a financial statement?

Yes; a mere statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Representative of the War Office on the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Target Practice Seawards, gave a distinct pledge that the War Office would not contemplate the possibility of shutting up either entrance to Plymouth Sound (as is now proposed by the new by-laws); and that, on the strength of that pledge, the mass of evidence which had been accumulated against such a proposition was not produced before the Committee; and whether he can give an assurance that this pledge will be adhered to?

There is no intention of interfering with vessels and boats in the ordinary course of navigation; the object of the by-laws is to prevent boats or vessels anchoring, or intruding and causing wilful obstruction in the areas which are described as closed. It is quite a misunderstanding that fishing or other vessels will be prevented from going into Plymouth. I may add that the objections to the by-laws have just been received from the Board of Trade. Most of the objections are based on this misunderstanding; others are on minor points. It is hoped that there will be no difficulty in coming to a satisfactory understanding.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what extensions have been made of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions subsequent to the passing of the Act for the better government of India (1858); in what years were such extensions made; and, what is the name and area of such extension?

In 1886 the province of Upper Burma was added to Her Majesty's Indian possessions; its area is about 83,500 square miles. In 1887 the frontier districts of Pishin and Sibi with their dependencies which had been under our administration under the treaty of Gundamak since 1879, were incorporated with British India. Besides these a considerable number of acquisitions of territory, including numerous exchanges with native princes, have taken place in various ways since 1858, the area in most cases being comparatively small. The information necessary for giving a complete answer to the hon. Member's question does not exist in this country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a party of non-commissioned officers of Royal Engineers has already sailed for Zanzibar, in connection with railway works in Uganda?

A party of non-commissioned officers under Lieutenants Sclater and Smith have left for Zanzibar, but they are to be engaged in improving the road between Kikuyu and the Lake, and not on railway work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether before introducing the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Bill Her Majesty's Government apprised the Government of Canada of their intention so to do; whether the Government of Canada have been made aware of the provisions of the Bill; whether they have expressed their concurrence with those provisions or any opinion concerning it; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence which may have reference to the subject in or since the year 1893?

The Dominion Government were aware that legislation would be necessary to take the place of the existing Act, which expires on the 30th instant, and some time ago they furnished Her Majesty's Government with a full expression of their views as to the Amendments which they desired in the existing Act. These views have received careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government, who have endeavoured in the Bill now submitted to meet them substantially.

The hon. Member has not said whether correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

I cannot say anything upon that point at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the gist of the Report received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg with regard to the murder of Mr. Joseph Crawshaw, to which reference was made on 30th May?

A despatch has been received from the Acting British Consul at Moscow confirming the Report which appeared in the newspapers of the attack on the mills at the Tikoso, near Moscow, and the murder of Mr. Crawshaw by the mob. Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been assured by the Russian Government that a full inquiry will be held, and that measures were being taken by the local authorities to prevent further disorders.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland with regard to his statement that a Bill dealing with Private Bill Procedure in Scotland was prepared and would be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, if he can now say when that Bill will be introduced; and if he can say that it is still the intention of the Government to use their best endeavours to pass it into law?

The Government have a Bill prepared on this subject, and would be glad to pass it if it were accepted as absolutely non-contentious. Those are the only conditions under which it could pass this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the serious and unusual loss of life occasioned by an accident on the 31st May last at the Fife-shire Main Colliery Pits; and whether he proposes to direct a public inquiry to be held as to the causes thereof?

I have received a report upon this lamentable disaster from the Inspector, and have already ordered a public inquiry, in which the Home Office will be represented by Counsel.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the United Kingdom or India is to bear the expenses incident to the Shahzada's visit to this country?

The cost of the entertainment of the Shahzada will be defrayed by the Indian Government.

Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat his answer? We could not hear it in this part of the House.

repeated the answer.

Will the Indian Government bear the entire cost—every penny of it?

Yes; but we shall be glad to receive any contribution from the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the Aldershot division, men and horses; and how many were present on parade on the occasion of the Shahzada's visit?

The strength of the Aldershot command on June 1 was 20,051 men 4,045 horses and mules. Of these numbers 17,098 men and 3,377 horses were present on parade on the occasion referred to.

asked whether the difference between the total strength of the men on parade was not to be attributed to a great extent to the large number of employed men; and what was the number of employed men now at Aldershot.

I have not got the figures for this year. But last year, when there was a large margin between those present on parade and the number in the command, those absent were accounted for as being a large number of them recruits, a certain number on guard, some sick, some on leave, some dismounted cavalry and engineers, some Army Service Corps, a large number at musketry practice, some attending classes, clerks, cooks, officers' servants, and so on. I may mention that last year of the discrepancy of 5,000, the officers' servants only numbered 208.

But they were not the only employed men.

No; I have not got the figures of the employed men.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, why the names of the Select Committee on Government Printing Contracts were not moved for on 28th May, in accordance with the promise given on this subject?

I am sorry that there has been delay in settling some of the names, but they will be put down on the Paper as speedily as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any ship of Her Majesty's Navy is stationed at Madagascar; and, if so, what instructions have been issued in regard to the protection of British subjects and their transport to South Africa?

said, a ship has been ordered to Madagascar for the protection of British subjects and to arrange for their removal if necessity arises.

When was the ship ordered to go, and when is she likely to arrive?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the engagement by which the Russian Government undertook, when Great Britain evacuated Port Hamilton, not to occupy any position in Corea still holds good; and, whether the Russian pledge equally applies to the territory west and south-west of Corea?

I stated in reply to a previous question from the hon. Member, that full particulars with regard to the withdrawal from Port Hamilton will be found in the Parliamentary Paper, China, No. 1, 1887, and that it would be seen from that correspondence that in the event of the British occupation of Port Hamilton ceasing, Russia gave a distinct pledge to China that in the future Russia would not take Corean territory. Her Majesty's Government consider that this engagement still holds good. The engagement which was given by Russia referred exclusively to Corea territory.

Perhaps the hon. Member will say whether the Government have received any information confirming the statement which appeared in most of the newspapers to-day, that China has agreed to assign to Russia a portion of Manchuria, or a new port for the Russian fleet?

said that he could not answer a question of that kind without notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letters by Mr. Bennett Burleigh from Madagascar, published in the Daily Telegraph, and especially to those dated 25th February and 16th April, and published on 16th May and 4th June; whether there are a considerable number of English traders and missionaries with their families in the interior of the island, and exposed to dangers from the Senegalese and Turco auxiliaries that form part of the invading army; whether Her Majesty's Government will send a man-of-war to Malagasy waters to give protection to British subjects and British interests; whether the French authorities at Tamatave seize and detain all British correspondence and newspapers; and whether M. Sauzier, the acting British Consul at Tamative, will be permitted to refuse to forward private correspondence?

The English traders and missionaries who elect to remain in the island are, from the nature of the case, exposed to the ordinary risks inseparable from military operations, but there is no reason to believe in special danger from the French forces. We have no information that British correspondence has been seized and detained. In the case of one mail the commander of a French cruiser demanded that the contents should be handed over to him, but it is not understood that he detained them. Mr. Sauzier cannot, while hostilities continue, receive and forward private correspondence.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wick-low (Mr. E. P. O'KELLY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the failure of the Arklow fishing industry, he will impress upon the Congested Districts Boards the necessity of extending the time for repayment of money lent to Arklow fishermen for the building of boats and for fishing purposes; and whether the legal proceedings threatened by the Board against the sureties for loans to Arklow fishermen will be suspended while giving the borrowers a reasonable time to pay the instalments due to the Board; also whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have seized upon an Arklow fishing boat named the True Light for a balance due upon the original loan, although the borrowers havealready paid £210 of the loan; and whether it is the intention of the Board to sell the boat by auction?

A letter has been written to the hon. Member asking him to be good enough to defer these questions until Monday next. They will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its meeting to be held to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, since the India Office communicated with the Government of India more than 12 months ago on the subject of flogging in the native army of the Crown, any decision has been arrived at with reference to its continuance or abolition; and whether he will lay the Correspondence upon the Table?

No decision has yet been arrived at on the subject of flogging in the native Army in India. Until the correspondence is completed it cannot be laid upon the Table.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government intend to take steps to accelerate the passage of the Welsh Church Bill, so that the Irish Land Bill may get into Committee in time to ensure its proper consideration.

This question and the two following questions really relate to the Business of the House, and I would submit to the hon. Member and to those who have the following questions that they should postpone them till I have made my statement, and they will arise naturally on the discussion on the Motion with which I shall conclude the statement.

On the Second Reading of the Rural Advertisements Bill, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

The House will, I think, agree with me that we have nothing to complain of in the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will go further and say that, so far as the terms of the Motion he has brought forward are concerned, I think they are in accordance with the practice of this House that about this period of the Session privileges should be given to the Government of the day with regard to the time of the House not in excess of what he has asked for. On the substance of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, I have little or nothing to say or complain of. He has, however, naturally enough, taken this occasion for making a survey of the past work of the Session, and forming some forecast as to its future. I am bound to say that, both as regards the present and as regards the future, the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be animated with an extremely sanguine spirit. It is a spirit which I have known before exhibited by Gentlemen in charge of Bills, which I myself have, perhaps, felt with regard to Bills I have been responsible for, but which the progress of events has not in the past, and, I think, will not in the future, always justify. It is the business of Governments to be sanguine about their business; and so far as I have had experience in these matters, either as a Member of the Government or of the Opposition, I have seldom found their sanguine forecasts have altogether met with the success which perhaps they have deserved. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt briefly with the condition of Supply, and has compared the number of days given to Supply in this Session with the number given in former Sessions. I have not had time to examine or check the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt they are quite correct. I notice the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the time given to Supply, mixed up together with that the time given to Votes on Account and to Supplementary Estimates, and that he did not make any comparison of the amount of time given up to this period in June to the discussion devoted to the Ordinary Civil Service Estimates with the time given on previous occasions. Had he given us that material for comparison, I cannot help thinking it would be found that in no normal Session of recent years had the discussion of the Ordinary Civil Service Estimates been so long delayed or such small progress made with them. However, I think the plan adumbrated by the Government of giving one day in the week to Supply for the remainder of the Session is a good plan, and is one which will meet with the legitimate needs of private Members, and will, in my judgment, more than supply the place of privileges which this Resolution takes away. I think now, as I have always thought, that private Members find better scope for their powers of criticism upon Supply than they can possibly have either on Friday or Tuesday evenings, and, I might possibly add, even on the Wednesday, for there is no part of the Government Resolution which I look upon with more satisfaction, taken as a whole, than the fact that it puts an end to some of those Wednesday proceedings. When I look back over the course of the Wednesdays of the present Session I see not very much to be very grateful for and a great deal which I have great reason to regret. I turn now to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the great Government measures now before the House. He has told us, in language which, I think, will find an echo in the heart of every man who loves the House of Commons, that he regards with extreme regret, and he would avoid by almost every means in his power, any operations which might stifle debate. He has appealed to his own past career as proof that the principles which he has expressed to us have been put by him into practice. If I were in a controversial mood, I think there are instances in recent Sessions which I might call up to the memory of the House, which would, perhaps, not altogether bear out the reminiscences of the right hon. Gentleman, and especially when I remember last year, the first, think, in which the right hon. Gentleman had been the Leader of the House and had the guidance of our proceedings. I remember, while he gave us ample opportunity for discussing the important proposals he brought before us in the Budget, what happened immediately after that, and when I recall to mind the incidents connected with the Evicted Tenants Bill, unless I am greatly mistaken, the same phrase cannot be bestowed upon the course the Government took upon that occasion. I do not wish to revive forgotten controversies, and I will only say that I entirely subscribe to and associate myself with the views which the right hon. Gentleman laid down as those most consistent with the honour, with the dignity, and with the usefulness of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has said, and quite truly, that if unfettered Debate is to go on in this House it must be by the co-operation of the minority with the majority. I quite admit that if the minority have rights the majority have rights too, and it is impossible for either parties to press those rights to excess without its being absolutely necessary to resort to those measures which, I am glad to think, by common agreement on both sides of the House we desire most of all to avoid. That general proposition being laid down, the difficulty comes in the application. What are the rights of the minority and of the majority, and in what consists an abuse of those rights by one Party or an abuse of them by the other? I admit, of course, that it is easy for the minority to carry to excess the powers of discussion which the ordinary rules of this House allow. I admit it would not be difficult to find examples in the past where that power has been exercised and abused in the minority; but, as I have said, I do not wish to recall such instances. But if the minority thus have abused and may abuse the right of discussion properly given by the rules of this House, let it be noted that the majority on their side must not press their rights too far. They must not overload the Paper; they must not swell their programme with measures in their nature so difficult and controversial that any minority which attempted to carry out its duties would be obliged to discuss them at considerable length and with fulness. And when I reflect upon the bill of fare which the Government have prepared for us I cannot help thinking that they have, unwittingly and unintentionally perhaps, set before themselves a task which neither they nor the House can possibly perform. The Welsh Bill has reached the middle of the 5th Clause. It consists of 31 clauses, and we are now at the 13th of June. After the Welsh Bill there is the Irish Land Bill, some of which is of an extremely controversial character and must be bitterly contested across the Floor of the House. Then there is the Local Veto Bill—a Bill which may have great merits, but which certainly has not the merit of allaying gentlemen of all Parties and shades of opinion in its support. And when these three great measures have been passed, we have still the Crofters' Bill, some parts of which must necessarily lead, I will not say to a protracted, but to some, controversy in this House. In addition to all these Bills—and possibly there are others—there is the whole work of Supply.

There is also the Plural Voting Bill.

Yes, I forgot the Plural Voting Bill; and there is another measure which the Government can hardly hope to get through the Report Stage without discussion; I refer to the Factories Bill of the Home Secretary. I do not wish to map out the time which those Bill ought to take; but I do submit to the House that it is absolutely impossible, so far as my experience of House of Commons work goes, that this vast mass of legislation can be carried through without throwing on the Members of the House a burden which it is impossible that they can bear, or at least without unduly curtailing Debate, and bringing on the House that disgrace which the right hon. Gentleman very justly desires to avoid. I do not press the matter further now. I only respectfully remind the majority that if they have rights, as I am far from contesting, they also have duties, and that one of their duties is not so to overstrain the amount of work they desire the House to perform as to put them in the dilemma either of having a continuous sitting to the utter destruction of the health and efficiency of the Members of this House, or else of unduly curtailing Debate by violent means, which all Members of all Parties sincerely desire to avoid. With that respectful warning as regards the future, I beg to say that, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should not give the Government the privileges, as regards the time of the House, asked for by the right hon. Gentleman in the Resolution which you, Sir, have read from the Chair.

said, he most cordially and heartily supported the right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken in their desire to preserve, in whatever might be done, the honour and dignity of the House. Private Members were as jealous of the honour and dignity of the House as either the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench or the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench. He found, after a careful investigation in the Library, that the Government had already had 61 days of the present Session for their business, and he did not think that for that vast amount of time a proportionate; amount of work had been done. As to the time given to private Members, there had been, since the beginning of the Session, 17 Wednesdays, on 15 of which private Members had had the opportunity of discussing private Bills. At the beginning of the Session private Members ballotted for places for their Bills, and there was a Standing Order that Bills which had passed their Second Reading should have precedence over other Bills. But it would be far more satisfactory if the Government of the day, instead of taking away the time of private Members by motions of this sort, were to say distinctly at the opening of the Session that they would appropriate all the time of the House. He could not help feeling that the time of the House might as well be devoted to the Bills brought in by private Members as to the Bills of the Government, for there was an absolute unreality in the whole proceedings of the Government. The Home Secretary had told his constituents in Scotland, and he was now carrying out his word, that Parliament was to "plough the sands of the seashore," and it had also been said that Parliament was to be kept sitting to "fill up the cup," but that cup seemed to take a long time to fill. He did not think there ever was a Session, since he had the honour of having a seat in the House, in which there was such a multiplicity of Bills read a first time and then dropped. There were no less than 25 Bills of the Government on the Paper, and eight of the nine of them were of a very highly contentious character. The Government had brought in those measures without any earthly hope of passing them, but merely with the desire of pleasing various sections of their supporters. The right hon. Gentleman had said that financial business was in some arrear. That was not the fault of private Members. He ventured to say that the Estimates had not been discussed by private Members in this Parliament at anything like the length at which they were discussed in past Parliaments. He noticed that there was a great tendency to take away the rights of private Members, and to exalt the powers and privileges of Members who sat on both front Benches. Against that tendency the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton strongly protested when just such another Motion was made by a Conservative Government in the Session of 1892, and he therefore hoped that if there was a Division they would have the support of the hon. Member. If the Government had proceeded from the commencement of the Session in a businesslike way—if they had curtailed the discussion on the Address, for instance—this Motion would have been unnecessary. He did not think Friday evenings had been used as well as, perhaps, some Members on his side of the House approved of, but there were three useful Motions down for the next three Fridays—Motions in respect to old-age pensions, procedure of the House, and the taking of a religious census in Wales. He could not find any opportunity for bringing the latter Motion forward. If he put it down as an Instruction it was ruled out of order, and if he won a good place in the ballot the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away his opportunity. He trusted that in some future Session the Leader of the House would be able to give hon. Members who were non-official their rights in regard to the time of the House.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to except from his Motion the Rating of Machinery Bill. This Bill had passed the House of Commons by large majorities in five or six successive Sessions; it had been regarded by successive Governments with something more than benevolent neutrality; and, if he was not mistaken, on more than one occasion hopes had been held out by the Government that special facilities would be given for advancing the Bill. In the present Session he was fortunate enough to get the third position in the ballot. The Bill again passed the House of Commons by a very substantial majority; it was referred to Grand Committee, and it passed through that Committee without amendment. It now stood first on the Paper for next Wednesday, and was the only private Member's Bill which stood for Third Reading Now, when, after years of endeavour, they had managed to get the Bill this favourable position, and when their hopes were in course of fruition, the right hon. Gentleman came with his fateful shears, and was prepared to snip the thread of its life. His impression was that very few, if any, precedents could be found for taking the whole time of the House before the second Wednesday after Whitsuntide. He admitted that the majority of private Members' Bills which were brought forward on Wednesdays dealt with subjects which, if they were to be dealt with at all, should be dealt with by the responsible Government of the day. That statement, however, did not apply to Bills of every kind; it did not apply to measures like the Rating of Machinery Bill, which, though they divided opinion, did not divide it upon Party lines. Such a Bill as the one of which he had charge could only be introduced by a private Member. He strongly appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an exception in favour of the Bill of which he had spoken.

I am sorry to say that I cannot give any support to the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend opposite. Assuming that the Government are entitled to make this demand on the time of the House, they are, in my opinion, justified in refusing to make any exception, for if they once begin to make exceptions they will find they will have demands made upon them from all quarters of the House, and it would be invidious to refuse any. And I am bound to say that if there is one Bill more than another with reference to which I would not make an exception, it is the Bill which is patronised by my hon. Friend. That is not only on account of the character of that Bill, which I myself oppose, but it is also and especially because of the method in which that Bill has been brought to its present stage. We have exactly the same charge to bring against the Bill as we had to bring against the Bill we were discussing yesterday. I do think we ought to refuse support to any Bill which has been passed through the Grand Committee without Amendment, and by which means this House has been deprived of the opportunity of considering its details. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the time has come at which there is full justification for the course taken by the Government, and I am quite prepared to support the Motion. But we might have a little more information from the Government. I think the position is a very singular one, and that we are establishing a new precedent in regard to the taking of time. Hitherto it has been customary at this period of the Session, when the Government has asked for additional facilities, for the Government to make some statement as to the Bills or measures which it is prepared to withdraw from the consideration of the House. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER shook his head in dissent.] I think I am right in saving that in the time of the late Government there was no demand of this character made without at the same time a statement being made as to the course of business. It is extremely inconvenient to the House that we should go on as we are going on at present. I trust the Government will tell us in no vague terms whether or not they hope to carry forward their measures and intend to sit until they have carried them. The hon. Gentleman opposite said the Government had 25 Bills on the Paper. He makes a mistake; they have 36. There are 36 Bills, each one of which the Government thinks of sufficient importance to attach the name of one of themselves to it. Of those 36 Bills I believe there are only eight that have reached the Second Reading. Therefore there are at the present time 28 Government Bills, including Bills which come down from the House of Lords, which have not even reached the stage of Second Reading. Well, surely it is undesirable that the House should be face to face with this mass of business unless there is a most determined intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the whole of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us on information whatever to show upon what the Government base their hopes of dealing with this mass of legislation. He said he expected moderation from his opponents—moderation on the part of the minority as well as on the part of the majority. We all agree that is a demand which he may fairly make upon us, but we have a right to ask him in reference to this mass of business, what treatment on the part of the Opposition he would consider moderate. How are we to divide the time of the Session so as by any possibility to give a practical chance to the great majority of these 36 Bills, 28 of which have not yet passed the Second Reading? The Chief Secretary for Ireland, I suppose speaking with authority, ventured upon a confident prediction at a meeting of his constituents the other day with regard to the business of the House. It was a very important and definite statement. It was that the Welsh Bill and the Irish Land Bill would both be passed through the House of Commons by the beginning of the last week in July. Well, now, we are not going to deal with either of those Bills until next week, and I have made a rough calculation from which it appears to me there will be about 25 days—that is five weeks of five days each, including Wednesdays and Fridays, at the disposal of the Government. Of those 25 days five must be given, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised us, to the consideration of Supply. That leaves 20 days, from which he must make some deductions for contingencies. There may be, for instance, Motions for Adjournment or something of that kind. You have to carry the Irish Land Bill through three stages—the whole of the Committee stage, the whole of the Report stage, and the Third Reading stage. You have to carry the Welsh Church Bill through the greater part of the Committee stage, the whole of the Report stage, and the Third Reading stage. I ask how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect to get through these two measures alone, without reference to anything else, by the time named by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? We ought to have some idea of what is in the minds of the Government as to what they think at the present time would be a fair amount of time to give to the discussion of these and other principal measures. If it is the general opinion that the demand which the Government make is moderate and reasonable, we may hope to deal with so much business as is agreed upon. But the point which I wish to press is that it would be absolutely impossible with any fair discussion, even if you could carry these two great Bills through in the time named, that you should deal with any of the other 34 Bills on the Paper. Then why this hypocritical pretence of going on with Bills which the Government in their hearts have discarded long ago? It is assuming that the supporters of the Government in this House, and in the constituencies, are very foolish indeed if it is supposed that they are really taken in by such a pretence of legislation as merely the Bills on the Paper when there is not the slightest chance of dealing with them. I have said enough to show that the situation is really exceptional; and while we may willingly grant the facilities for which they now ask, we may ask in return that they should give us to-day, or at an early date, some indication of the Bills which they think the House may be able to dispose of.

The hon. Member for Leeds has been answered to a large extent by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, though I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's views at all. Unfortunately, it is inherent to motions of this kind that they should interfere with the progress of more than one highly meritorious Bill which the Government would gladly see passed into law.

This Bill is in a unique position.

It cannot be in a unique position, because the right hon. Member for West Birmingham says that it is a double of the Bill of yesterday, having passed through the Standing Committee without amendment. The real truth is, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has said, it is impossible for the Government to enter upon the question of exemption. It would be a most invidious task to decide between one Bill and another; and I had a sufficient experience last year of holding out hopes of the passing of a particular Bill to make me extremely cautious about holding out such hopes again. Of course, that is a course which the Government could not take. But there are accidents in human affairs which might give the hon. Member's Bill a chance, and there might come a time when the Third Reading might be taken. As to that I cannot offer an opinion; but, if such an opportunity should occur, the hon. Member will find me a supporter of his Bill. With reference to what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has said, I would remind him that the time has not yet come as to making a classification of the Bills. When I made this Motion last year, on May 31, the Leader of the Opposition said:—

"I do not expect the Government as early as May 31 to go through the painful operation of the slaughter of the innocents."

I do not know why that particular phrase is applied to this process of dealing with Government Bills, because the Opposition do not regard them as "innocents" at all. It is not on that ground that they desire their slaughter. There was a heathen deity who was in the habit of devouring his children, and who would, I think, offer a more natural image to apply to this case. But last year, when I was called upon to specify the measures with which the Government intended to go on, it was on July 18, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham then went through an elaborate arithmetical calculation by which he demonstrated that it was impossible that those Bills should pass. But, as a matter of fact, they did pass.

I did demonstrate to my own satisfaction that it was impossible for them to pass with fair discussion. They did not have fair discussion.

That they did not have fair discussion was partly due to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. They were not Bills of a highly-contentious character. But I am afraid that if we come to political arithmetic the right hon. Gentleman and I should not entirely agree. At all events, I cannot undertake at the present time to answer his appeal by giving a certain number of days for each particular Bill. The time for that has not come yet. But in answer to one question addressed to me I can say that it is the intention of the Government, at all events with reference to the great and principal Bills which have already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to go on with them with the intention of passing them into law during the present Session. If the time be short, then the Session will be short; if the time be long, then the Session will be long. I have no desire to close discussion, but at the same time I have a strong desire, and on the part of the Government I wish to express their determination, to proceed with those measures until they have passed through this House.

said, that he also had a Bill for which he should have liked to invite the tender mercies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him not to make an appeal for invidious distinctions; but if he did not, it was not because he did not think this Bill was of far greater importance than the Rating of Machinery Bill. This Motion was brought forward at absolutely the wrong time. It ought to have been made four months ago or six weeks hence. He did not stop to argue whether the rights of private men were good or bad; but at this point of their legislation to interrupt them with such a Motion was to make the opportunities of legislation a farce and a sham. If their rights were bad, then they had wasted 14 Wednesdays since the Session opened. First, much time was spent in balloting for places and bringing in Bills; and in 12 Wednesdays, with five hours each, 14 Bills had been discussed. Of those 13 had passed a Second Reading; six had been referred to the Standing Committees; one to a Select Committee, and one had been read a second time. Several of the Bills had been passed by the Standing Committees, and a great deal had been said lately about the Standing Committees being brought into contempt and their work being rendered useless. No better way of doing that could be found than calling Members to discuss Bills which they knew had no conceivable chance of becoming law. Many of the Members of the Standing Committees complained of the strain which the work imposed upon them; and if this Motion were to become annual, it would be found that Members would not attend the Standing Committees to consider Bills which could not possibly become law. This Motion went very much further than the right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches seemed to think. The occasion was one on which the two Benches conspired to sit upon private Members, and the Motion burked one of the Standing Orders of the House. Order No. 12 said that after Whitsuntide public Bills other than Government Bills should have precedence according to the stage which they had reached. What was the use of that Order if the Government took away the only day on which it could come into force? If this Motion were to be made every Session, the sooner that Standing Order was repealed the better. It was perfectly obvious from this Motion that the Government thought that private Members' legislation was bad; and on that ground he had another cause of complaint. The Motion did not go far enough. This Session 400 Bills had been introduced. Night after night batches of them appeared on the Paper, and the titles were read out, occupying from ten minutes to three-quarters of an hour. That necessitated certain hon. Members sitting on night after night for no other reason than to prevent pernicious Bills becoming law. If the Government were opposed to private Members passing their Bills, they should save them the trouble of going through this dreary list night after night. If the Government's Motion were carried, he should propose as an addition:—

"That after all Government business has been disposed of, Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair without question put."

That would not meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they could not eat their cake and have it also. If they were determined, for the sake of these valuable Government measures, to give up the whole time of the House, and take away the few rights remaining to private Members, they must pay the penalty. They must expect henceforth very little mercy, and no sympathy for their Bills from those who were opposed to this Motion.

said, he was very glad that some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, had stood up for the rights of private Members. But he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras would not press his Motion to a Division. He thought that on this occasion there were special reasons why the Opposition should not oppose the Motion of the Government. The Session was somewhat far advanced, and some Members of the Opposition, for good reasons, desired to be outside the House. That, however, was only a minor reason; but he thought that the private Opposition Members had on this occasion been deserted by their leaders. The front Opposition Bench had been "squared" by the Government. They were aware, from the speeches which had been delivered, that the Government programme was in an unexampled state of confusion, and it appeared to him that the Opposition ought to divest themselves of all responsibility for the remainder of the Session with regard to the time of the House. He looked upon this as an unprecedented occasion, because all hon. Members were anxious to hasten the time when they would have the opportunity to consult the views of their constituents on the Government's programme. In these circumstances it seemed to him that it would be the more straightforward course to give the Government ample time for the remainder of the Session, in order to show the country what their programme was really worth. For that reason he would not oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had no intention of contesting the claim of the Government to a larger share of the time of the House. He thought, however, that an exception might have been made in favour of the Wednesday Sittings, because that day was in a different category from the other days of the Parliamentary week. Wednesday was the only day in the week on which it was possible for a private Member to submit a Bill for the consideration of the House. He had, however, heard with satisfaction, and the Liberal Party throughout the country would learn with satisfaction, that it was the intention of the Government to persist in their efforts to carry out the whole of their Sessional programme before the House rose. He trusted that the Government would, when the proper time arrived, come to the conclusion that it would be their duty to sit later in the year in order to complete the work which could not be undertaken during the Sittings of the present period, because he should like to see certain measures which had reached an advanced position obtain a chance during a later period of the year to pass into law—a chance which was now denied them. There was one measure in which he was greatly interested—namely, the Burial Acts (Amendment) Bill. He reminded the Government that pledges had been given with reference to this subject over and again. Fifteen years ago a Liberal Government promised that at no distant day the whole question of the Burial Laws should be dealt with; and in February, 1893, the Home Secretary promised that if a private Member dealt with the question, the Government would do their utmost to facilitate the passage of the measure. That work had now been undertaken by a private Member, and he warned the Government that, in consequence of the creation of Parish Councils, trouble might be in store for them unless something was done to pass a measure dealing with a reform of the Burial Laws.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really entitled to some acknowledgment for the courtesy and dignity with which he had treated this question. His speech, indeed, amounted to a rebuke, proper and necessary, of those among the right hon. Gentleman's followers who were always clamouring that he should go into the Torture Chamber and bring out his thumbscrews and apply them to the Members of the Opposition. He took note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed confidence in the House, and that reasonable opportunities would be afforded for discussion. He also took it for granted that, the right hon. Gentleman having "set his bow in the cloud," there would be no Autumn Session. As to the Amendment, however, he thought that if there was one day of the week which ought to be appropriated, the most criminal day of the week was Wednesday. Perhaps it might be thought that this was his view because he had not succeeded in the Wednesday ballot. He might remark that he had never tried. He was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appropriated one day in the week to the interests of Supply. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen Friday possessed many advantages. It would enable those Members who did not take any interest in the financial affairs of the country to take an extra day's holiday in addition to the following Saturday, and it would have the additional advantage of leaving in the House only those Members who took an interest in the financial affairs of the country; and thus he looked forward to many a happy symposium. But private Members had always their Habeas Corpus Act suspended at this time of the year. The daughters of the horse leech were not in it with the Leader of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer not only cried "Give, give!" but he had the power of enforcing his demands, because when once the Government had taken all the time of the House they had in fact taken all the power of the House; they could prevent any Member from doing anything, and they could do anything they chose themselves. He would point out, however, one reason which rendered it necessary for the time of the House to be absorbed at this moment. It was because they had not used the time hitherto at their disposal wisely or well. Take for example the flagrant instance of the Seal Fishery Bill. That was an important Bill; but the Government had introduced it so late as only to leave Parliament 20 days for passing it. The result would be that, having allowed this short period of time for the consideration of the Bill, the Government would in all probability appeal again to the House, on the ground of lack of time, that hon. Members should forbear to use their opportunities for a proper discussion of the measure. If, therefore, the whole time of the House was now to be taken, some of it must be given to the consideration of that Bill. The Leader of the Opposition did not mention one most important piece of Government business which they had to deal with. It was the Resolution against the House of Lords. The Prime Minister told the country at Bradford that until the question of the House of Lords was got rid of no legislation could be passed by the Liberal Party in the House of Commons; that the House of Lords was an obstacle in the way of every step which the Government took in the direction of legislation. Lord Rosebery went further, and said there were two acts in the course which had to be taken by the Government. The first was the Resolution against the House of Lords; the second was the appeal to the country to support that Resolution. Were they going to have the second act before the first, or were they to have a third act embodying the tragical end of the Government before the second or the first act, or was it that the predominant partner in the Cabinet had overridden the sleeping partner in another place, and that the two-act tragedy of "Resolution" was to be supplanted entirely by the farce of "the Sands of Dee"? He trusted that both for Bills and for the Resolution the House would have proper and adequate opportunity for discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very handsomely acknowledged that there had been no obstruction, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in asking for the time of the House, of which he hoped he would make good use.

said, it was not often that he had an opportunity of voting with Her Majesty's Government, but he would have that honour to night, because their Motion would have the effect of choking off one of the most mischievous Bills ever brought before the House. He alluded to the Rating of Machinery Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds had said that that Bill had received the sanction of five or six Parliaments, but those who were interested in argiculture thought it had gone far enough. The Bill in question simply sought to relieve the manufacturers of taxation and to place it on the agricultural interest. He hoped that agricultural Members would remember that the Government had in a left-handed fashion endeavoured to support them by the course they had taken and would give them their support now.

hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way at some early period to give the House some further information. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that the Government intended to pass all their principal measures. It was perfectly clear that they could not pass the secondary measures, which they were now sending to the Grand Committees and Select Committees. It was all very well to call upon Members to serve on these Committees in the early part of the Session, but it was asking too much to call upon them to come down to the House day after day for five days in the week, when Government Bills were being discussed, and, at the same time, to serve on Select and Grand Committees. He really thought that the right hon. Gentleman might consider this point—namely, whether he could not relieve hon. Members from the necessity of serving on Committees.

ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would have some regard to the pledge he gave more than three months ago, that he would take the Army Estimates at an early date, seeing that, in consideration of that pledge, he obtained a large Vote in two and a-half minutes. He hoped the House might ask for some tardy observance of that pledge.

I will consider that. I hope I may get many more Votes in two and a-half minutes.

said, he understood that the Welsh Bill would go on during the whole of each week except on the day in which Supply was put down. He wished to ask what the next Bill would be, the Irish Land Bill or the Local Veto Bill?

I have already said that the Irish Land Bill will follow immediately on the Welsh Bill.

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any time-table in his mind which would enable him to indicate the probable time when the Irish Land Bill would get into Committee?

No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot give any indication at present.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would allow his Motion not to take effect until next week. The result of its taking effect now would be to closure a discussion on agriculture which was down for to-morrow. It was desired to ascertain whether the Government could see their way to apply the increasing profits of the Post Office to the establishment of an agricultural parcels post, for the purpose of conveying produce quickly and cheaply to the consumer.

asked what Supply would be taken tomorrow. He also wished to ask, with reference to a question he had upon the Paper, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not seriously take into consideration some means of making the discussions in Supply a little more effective. Under the present system the same Votes were discussed year after year, with the result that a good many important Votes received no consideration at all. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking regularly the first class as the first subject for discussion, would vary the order, and begin with some of the more important Estimates, such as the Education Vote, it would be a great improvement.

said, he entirely sympathised with what had been said by the hon. Gentleman. At present they had the same petty questions raised first on the Vote on Account, which, in his opinion, ought to be devoted to major political questions, repeated when they came to the Estimates themselves, and he thought the time might be much more usefully employed. He would consider the matter with a view to carrying out, as far as he could, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, he understood that it would not be convenient to bring on the Army Estimates to-morrow, so he would put down the Civil Service Estimates; but, in the absence of any other arrangements, they must begin with Class 1. In the future arrangements of Supply he would feel very desirous of acting on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. With reference to the appeal of the hon. Member for Dorset as to the Motion upon Agriculture, he must point out that he had said that even those in the most beneficial position could not be excepted, and the hon. Gentleman did not stand even in a foremost position, for his was not the first Amendment on the Paper. He would not be justified in making a selection.

I do not think that I need detain the Committee at any great length in offering some explanations with regard to this Vote, and in making a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the future administration of the country affected by the Vote. In the first place there is nothing in the Vote intended in any way to alter or change the present administration in Uganda itself. The Vote deals with the affairs of the country that may be roughly described as lying between Uganda and the coast in British East Africa. The Committee will remember that last year, when a protectorate was established over Uganda, although we dwelt on the fact that it was necessary to retain British influence and British control over the country intervening Uganda and the sea, that country was left for the time being in the administration and under the control of the British East Africa Chartered Company. That Company was anxious to dispose of the rights under the Charter with regard to that territory, provided it received what it considered due consideration from the Government—in other words, it was anxious to sell the rights it had acquired, and to dispose of them to the Government, if the Government were prepared to buy them. That, I think, was the attitude of the Company—they were ready to make an offer to Her Majesty's Government. The question arose, was it desirable, in the public interests, that Her Majesty's Government should take advantage of that opportunity and endeavour to come to terms with the Company? In most of what has been said or written on this subject, from the time that Sir G. Portal's first Report appeared, you will find an opinion has been expressed that it was desirable this country should come under the administration which was, at any rate, controlled by the same authority as Uganda was subject to. The Company made an offer and Her Majesty's Government entered into communication with the Company, and after the passing of a certain amount of correspondence, the important portions of which have been already laid before the House, in Africa No. 4, 1895, the Company and the Government made an agreement, under which the Company was willing to dispose of its rights. The Company had two things to dispose of: First of all was the concession of the strip, ten miles broad, on the coast, held from the Sultan of Zanzibar; next were its possessions in the territory inside that coast, which it was entitled to administer under its charter and under treaties. The Sultan of Zanzibar proposed to buy back the Company's concession, and the assets have been disposed of for the sum of £200,000 altogether. Her Majesty's Government have proposed to add to that £50,000, to compensate the Company for the work it has done in the country inside the ten-mile strip, and to take over the rights of administration in that strip. The Committee is, probably, well aware that many opinions have been expressed as to whether the Government ought to have given the Company anything at all, and, on the other hand, as to what the amount of the allowance ought to have been, and whether we ought not to have made them a much larger allowance. I do not propose to discuss the extreme opinions; I will only say that, although undoubtedly the East Africa Company has received in the past encouragement and support from Lord Salisbury's Government—

Is there, in the Foreign Office, any record bearing that out?

Certainly the Company have received encouragement and support in the way in which many British enterprises have received it—they were looked favourably upon. ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] The question is sometimes raised whether the British Government has encouraged British enterprises. Undoubtedly it has given encouragement and support to British enterprises; and I have no doubt the Company did receive encouragement and support in that way. I do not contend that the encouragement and support given to this company was of such a nature as to entitle the company to demand full indemnity and satisfaction for everything it had expended in the country. In other words, the relations between the British East Africa Company and the British Government were never such as to leave all the risk to the British Government and all the hope and prospect of future benefit at the disposal of the company. Therefore, when it is said, as it has been, although I do not know it has been said in this House, that we ought to have given a much larger sum to cover the whole of certain expenditure of that company, I say at once that it is not the view taken by Her Majesty's Government. But the company were entitled to some compensation. The Government have expressed this in a letter, published in Africa No. 4, in which they say:—

"No doubt advantages to trade, which the company would have been the first to reap, were expected from opening up the lake district. …. On the other hand, the company were the pioneers through whose agency British influence was extended to the lake district, and by their means the condition of the native inhabitants has been improved and the slave trade suppressed in the territories administered by them."

Oh!

Undoubtedly they have done a great deal in this direction; they have laboured to suppress the slave trade.

"Moreover, the maintenance of posts at Machakos and Fort Smith, where a useful and effective control has been exercised by the agents of the Company, materially facilitates the work which has been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in Uganda."

That I propose to put before the Committee, as the justification of Her Majesty's Government in offering this sum of £50,000 to the company for making over their rights in the territory behind the ten-mile strip of coast. The rights of the company being disposed of in that way, being transferred to Her Majesty's Government or to the Sultan of Zanzibar, the question arises, what is to be the condition of the country when the company has retired. Practically the question may be divided into two considerations—first of all that which applies to the ten-mile strip of coast line belonging to the Sultan of Zanzibar, and next that which applies to the part inside, which is really under no settled native authority at all. In dealing with that territory for the present purpose it will be enough to bear in mind that it is necessary that the control and influence of the British Government should be maintained over that territory, primarily as a means of communication with Uganda and inland. That, at any rate, is a primary and essential condition. I do not think that for the purpose of this evening's discussion it is needful to go beyond the necessity that we must keep open our communications, and to keep them open we must maintain a control over the country between Uganda and the sea. One question will at once occur, and it is whether anything is to be done to facilitate the means of communication through the country. Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to construct a railroad between Uganda and the coast. [Loud Cheers.] As soon, therefore, as the necessary arrangements can be made a railway will be begun—[renewed cheers]—and, although no money is taken for the railway in this particular Vote—wherefore I do not propose to dwell upon it at any greater length—I can assure the House that no unnecessary delay will take place. [Cheers.] The next point to be considered is the administration of the country itself. In order to provide for that Her Majesty's Government propose that the country intervening between Uganda and the coast shall be included as a British protectorate. [Cheers.] That in no way extends the operations of the Government beyond Uganda; the limits of Uganda are not altered on the further side. The Committee, therefore, need not regard this as any great extension of the obligations of the Government. If we are to maintain control over the intervening country, I am certain that the natives of that country will not have the remotest conception of the difference between a sphere of influence and a protectorate. I ought to say that this is not to be added to the protectorate of the Uganda, but it will be a separate protectorate. There is nothing in this Vote to alter the existing condition of things in Uganda. The advantages of a protectorate will be that it does not in the nature of things extend the obligations which are undertaken by the British Government. It does make the administration of the country very much easier, because with it goes, as a matter of course, the power of jurisdiction over foreigners who may enter the country. The further question that remains is—Who is to administer this British protectorate? Various plans have been proposed, and have been considered. It has no doubt been discussed whether or not the authority of the Sultan of Zanzibar should be made use of for administering a considerable portion of the mainland. The revenues of Zanzibar are likely to be taxed at the fullest extent they will bear in connection with the status of slavery in the islands themselves. On that ground I put it to the Committee that it would not be desirable, and I do not think it would be possible, to throw the necessary expenditure of the administration of any part of the mainland upon the revenues of Zanzibar. Her Majesty's Government will have to find the money to administer this territory on the mainland, and, that being so, it is better that the administration should be under their direct control. It is, therefore, proposed that, in administering this territory, which will be handed over to the East African Company, it should be administered on the same lines as Uganda is administered—by officials who will be placed under the authority of the Consul General at Zanzibar, and have no connection with the Zanzibar Government. It is estimated that the amount of money which it will be necessary to provide for the administration of this territory, from which the company, are retiring, will amount to £30,000 a year. That is asked for in this vote, and the result of the vote practically is, first of all, to compensate the company, so that the agreement with the company may be carried out and the company may hand over its rights and leave the field clear; secondly, to place Her Majesty's Government in a position to at once proceed to take over the rights of the company, the existing establishments, and no doubt, in a large number of cases, the existing personnel as a going concern, and provide for the administration and development of the country without further delay. One point will arise, no doubt, as regards administration. The arrangement is quite simple as regards territory inside the strip of coast ten miles wide, which belongs to the Sultan of Zanzibar. It may be asked:

"What arrangements are you going to make with the Government of Zanzibar, who are the owners of the ten-mile strip of territory which they had leased under the concession to the East Africa Company, and which the Government of Zanzibar, under agreement with the company, are going to purchase?"

I think the Committee will admit it is desirable that that ten-mile strip should be placed under the same administration as the mainland behind it. It will be necessary to make some arrangement with the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the arrangement will be on these lines: The rent which the East Africa Company pay to the Sultan of Zanzibar, amounting to £11,000 a year, will be paid by Her Majesty's Government, and the interest on the £200,000 belonging to the Sultan of Zanzibar will be paid at 3 per cent. by Her Majesty's Government. That will amount to £17,000. The revenues from Customs in the ten-mile strip already amount to £15,000, and that, whatever views hon. Members may hold as to the future of the country, can hardly decrease. At any rate, our estimate is that this £17,000, which will be paid yearly to the Sultan of Zanzibar, will practically be covered by the revenue of the country. I ought to add that what I have said about the administration of the country applies also to the Protectorate of Witu, which must be a separate sovereignty from that of Zanzibar, and the administration of that is also included in the provision that will be made and will be covered by the £30,000 which has been voted by the House. I have, I think, put the House in possession of the intentions of the Government and the arrangements we proposed to make. I do not wish to enter on any controversial matters, which can be dealt with afterwards, if raised. I will only submit the Vote to the Committee by saying that I think it is the necessary outcome of the establishment of a Protectorate over Uganda. I know there are hon. Members who would be glad if we retired from Uganda altogether. That has often been discussed, and I think I am not going too far in saying that I regard that matter as having been settled and decided. It is no longer a possible alternative, and I think I am justified in submitting this Vote to the House as an arrangement which may be regarded with satisfaction by the Committee as a provision for the future administration of the country, the maintenance of our control and influence over it, and the safety of the Protectorate of Uganda itself.

I have listened with the greatest interest and general satisfaction to the statement which has been made in the House by the Under Secretary. I think it would indeed be churlish to make any complaint that this important decision of the Government has been announced to us by him, because we all feel that there is no one in the Government or out of it who has a greater grasp of the subject, or who is able in clearer or more intelligent terms to put his case before the House. But though, Sir, I do not make any complaint, I may be permitted to express a little surprise, because we understood, from proceedings in another place, that this statement would be made here by another and still more important Member of the Government, although I cannot admit he is better qualified to make the statement than my hon. Friend. I am sure we shall wait with interest to hear what will be said in the further development of this Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the Member of the Government I more particularly refer to. In another place we understood the head of the Government considered this declaration of policy of so much importance that he announced that the statement would be made by the Leader of this House. There has evidently been a change of plan, and it is most difficult for any of us to even entertain a suspicion as to what could have been the reason for this change. Now, Sir, dealing with the statement of the hon. Baronet, I have to say that, in the first place, it affords the greatest possible justification for the action of the late Government and the position taken up, consistently from the first, by the Unionist Party. We have always said it is necessary for the honour and interests of this country that a protectorate should be established over Uganda. In the time of the late Government that was absolutely denied, but we now find it accepted, if not unanimously, at all events by a great majority on both sides of the House. We also said at a later period that the protectorate of Uganda would involve an extension of protectorate over the country which commanded communication with Uganda. The Under Secretary has declared to-day that that was a self-evident proposition. It is a curious thing that that self-evident proposition on the occasion of previous discussions escaped the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we were told by him that any such protectorate would be almost immoral, and certainly a most impolitic proceeding. He also said:—

"If you are going to establish a protectorate over Uganda you would inevitably have to make a railway, since that was the only way that territory could be cheaply administered and profitably developed."

I congratulate the Government on having come at last to the same conclusion, but I regret the hesitation and delay which have marked their action. But I cannot help saying I think the time has now come when we may expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an explanation of the circumstances and reasons which have led him to change his opinion. When the question was previously discussed the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a powerful statement and laid before the House arguments which no doubt demanded full consideration. For instance, I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was quite impossible to make the railway without forced labour. We rejoice that the Government has come to the conclusion that the railway is a necessity, but we do not wish to see it made by forced labour. I trust, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us how he is able now to assure us it is possible to make it without forced labour, when previously he said this was impossible.

I hold the same opinion still.

But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it a legitimate thing to make that railway with forced labour? Does he think that this country, which is doing its utmost to put an end to slavery, which is going, at considerable expense and even at some risk, to prohibit the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar—does he think it is a moral and proper thing for us to use forced labour, which is only another name for slavery, in the construction of that railway? That seems to me to be a most unprincipled thing and any British Government which knowingly and deliberately introduces forced labour into Central Africa is doing that which is absolutely inexcusable. I put the Chancellor on the horns of a dilemma. He has told us that he still thinks it is impossible to make this railway without forced labour. What is his position in the Government? He is Leader of the House and a most important Member of the Government. We know his influence is supreme if he chooses to exercise it; that the Government could not go on a single day without him; and he has it in his power, if he thinks this is an immoral project, to stop it. I am perfectly astounded by the interjection the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I have come to the conclusion that he has changed his opinion. He is right, and I ask what has led him to adopt that change of view? Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the face of the House of Commons, declaring that he believes we are about to do an immoral thing, which he has it in his power to prevent, and he sits there and allows this to be done by his colleagues and a Government in which he has supreme influence. That is a matter which undoubtedly requires further explanation. But here is another statement with regard to this railway, also made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again, it is not an expression of opinion, but a positive statement:—

"The railway can only be made by men with Winchester repeating rifles in their hands. You must have platelayers with rifles every hundred yards along the line."

The railway is 800 miles long; there is to be a platelayer with a rifle every 100 yards. As far as I can make out that will involve a force of 14,000 platelayers with rifles. What does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say about that? Does he still offer to the House this prospect of our having to employ these 14,000 men with rifles in their hands? Then there is another point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the making of this line would tend a great deal more to promote slavery than to prevent it. Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind upon that point also? The interjection which the right hon. Gentleman made just now leads me to suppose that he still retains his opinion upon these points. If so it is evident that he has made himself personally responsible for a proposal which he believes will tend to promote slavery rather than to prevent it, which will involve forced labour on that part of Africa, and which will require an army of nearly 15,000 men. Never was such a proposal made to the House of Commons, and if any subordinate Member of the Government had made such a proposal the right hon. Gentleman himself would have been one of the first to hold that he was guilty of an act of political immorality. That such a course as this should have been taken by a person in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House passes altogether my comprehension. I have dealt with the point on which the Government as a whole have entirely justified the opinions on this matter which have been previously expressed by the Unionist Party. There is one other point upon which I have to congratulate the Government, and that is in reference to the simplification which they are going to introduce into the administration of this important State. When we last discussed the matter I expressed an opinion as to the great difficulty and complication that would arise in reference to the administration if this strip of the coast, the interior, and Uganda itself were all under separate administrations. As I understand the Under Secretary there will be only one administration for East Africa, from the coast to Uganda, which will be included in one single protectorate. Of course, that will get rid of a great number of difficulties, which must be vast, if there were to be a separate administration. I noticed an ironical cheer from the hon. Member below me, when the Under Secretary stated the amount of the Imperial charge that would be laid upon the country in carrying out these arrangements; but the House must not be led away into supposing that it will be necessarily a continuous a growing charge, because, if the country takes over the cost of the administration, it takes over at the same time the revenues that will accrue in consequence of that administration; and I have every reason to believe that, when the railway is made, importations will greatly increase, and therefore the annual charge upon this country will probably be correspondingly a decreasing charge. There is every reason to hope that, as has been the case in every instance in which we have undertaken responsibilities for this kind of colony, the colony will, before a great many years are past, prove to be a self-supporting one. There are only two points with regard to which the statement of the Under Secretary was incomplete. Although it would be ungenerous not to admit that much has been done, still I regret that the Government are not prepared at the present time to go a little farther. We predicted that they would have to go as far as they have gone, and so we have turned out to be true prophets to that extent. I will now make another prediction, that they will have to go farther, and they will only unnecessarily delay the solution of the question by not grappling with the difficulty at once, by extending the protectorate to the territories around Uganda which are all within the sphere of influence of this country. It is impossible to suppose that these countries will not eventually form part of the protectorate. At present we are engaged in hostilities with Kabarega. Some people express sympathy with him, but I suppose he is about as bad a specimen of the native slave-dealer as is to be found on that coast. He holds at the present time some 20,000 people in slavery, and it is perfectly absurd to undertake this responsibility without opening our eyes to the obligations before us. The "Little Englanders" are perfectly consistent. They would have prevented all the extension of the Empire that has taken place within the last 100 years for reasons exactly as strong and similar in character that they put forward now. And holding these views they are perfectly consistent and are perfectly right in pointing out that you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs, and that you cannot undertake the responsibility for these countries inhabited by these savage people without facing the necessity of the case and without being prepared to spend money and, to a certain extent, life. That is absolutely necessary; but, in my opinion, it was as absolutely justified in the past, as it will be in the future, by the benefits which will ultimately accrue. If we can extend, as we shall extend, to the vast and fertile territory that pax Britannica which would enable the people of the country to live quietly and engage in agriculture and other pursuits, we shall save infinitely more lives than can possibly be taken in the preliminary proceedings necessary to put down those who at present disturb their peace. I regret that the Government have not faced their responsibities in this matter and have not told us what they are going to do with the territories which surround Uganda. I suppose it may be answered to what I am going to say that the question does not arise out of the present Vote, but it is closely connected with it; but I must say that I regret that no further statement was made by the Government with reference to the territories on the Nile. Colonel Colvile sent an expedition to Wadelai, which, we are told by the Undersecretary, has been withdrawn. But I should like to know upon what ground that expedition has been withdrawn and what view the Government take with reference to their obligation in connection with the Upper Waters of the Nile. That is a most important part of the question—it is, indeed of infinitely greater importance, in consequence of its connection with our European relations, than even the protectorate of Uganda. May I remind the Committee of the position in which the latter stands? The Under Secretary, speaking with the full authority of the Government, told us the other day that the Government would regard as an unfriendly act any expedition by France or other foreign State which should enter upon the Upper Waters of the Nile which the Government regarded as being within the British sphere, or the Egyptian sphere, of influence. But what, if such an expedition does reach the Nile, is the Government prepared to do? Having stated publicly before the world that they would regard the sending of such an expedition as an unfriendly act, are the Government in a position to say that there is no chance of such an expedition actually being sent? From the latest information I have received, which is, of course, not authoritative, and which may amount merely to one of those rumours which are so frequently current, it appears that a portion of the expedition of M. Decazes has been lost sight of, which is a euphonism for saying that it is proceeding in the direction of the Nile. That is a most serious state of things, which may lead to a situation of great danger. Whilst I am perfectly content to place implicit confidence in the Government if they will tell us that they are alive to all that is going on, we are entitled to ask them to give us such assurances as will remove all cause for alarm. I think I have dealt with the main points of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and I repeat that, as far as he is concerned and as the mouthpiece of the majority of the Government as a whole, that statement will be received with satisfaction by both sides of the House.

congratulated the Government upon the reversal of their former policy, which the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had indicated. He regretted, however, that more detail had not been given, and that owing to the delay that had taken place in arriving at a decision by the Government in declaring a protectorate over Uganda great expense and possibly some bloodshed had been incurred. He was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman had not given the House some further information in regard to the railway, and he should like to know the date at which it would be commenced. He should like to know whether the Government were going to combine with Germany in the construction of a railway, and whether the line was to start from a German or a British port. They wished also to know whether the railway would be made by forced labour. He was quite of opinion that without this railway neither our interests nor our honour could be preserved in that part of Africa. But why had the Government for three years opposed its construction, at the cost of heavy expenditure in Uganda, and the loss of valuable lives? If they had really intended to make the railway they should have made it at first, and not allowed our men to go upon that three-months' journey through the wildernesses, when they knew that ultimately they were going to make the railway. They ought to congratulate themselves that the Government was following in the footsteps of its predecessors in regard to this decision. They were bound in every way to make this railway, but they ought, he thought, to insist on the Government coming to some decision as to the date of the commencement of the railway, and how far they intended to proceed with it. They were now only aware that the Government approved of the construction of a railway, but he should have liked them to have asked for money and to have laid a scheme before the House. He was convinced that the House, and the country, would have granted anything the Government might have chosen to determine on for such a purpose, and he hoped before the Debate closed that the Leader of the House himself would tell them that he was prepared to find the money to start this railway. The railway, if it started from a good port, would develop the country through which it passed. He thought the Government had come to an eminently satisfactory conclusion. He did not like to hear much said about the authority of the Sultan of Zanzibar, because we had practically annexed the Sultan of Zanzibar, with all his territory, and were really responsible, not only for the coastline, but also the interior of the island. He cordially supported the Government in making three distinct administrations; geographically the three areas were very distinct. The island, the East African coast, and Uganda, as a protectorate, were three distinct areas, with distinct needs; he hoped, however, that some head would be found to unite all three protectorates in a common policy. He feared that £30,000was a very low estimate to make, on account of the delay in taking over the administration by the Government, and it would not cover expenditure in connection with petty wars; but on the other hand, he thought the Under Secretary had by no means over-estimated the possible revenue. There was one system of raising revenue which we had not yet tried in our own protectorates or colonies, but which had been tried by foreign nations, and he thought in that respect we might follow our foreign friends. He wished the hon. Baronet had given them some indication of the process of raising the revenue which was contemplated. He cordially congratulated the Government on having taken perhaps the most important step ever taken by any British Government in opening up tropical Africa, and he hoped it would be but the first step in a policy which would be applied to both of the coasts of Africa. They could not limit their responsibilities or their duties in that respect. Not only would they by this step open up these countries to their commerce, and do their duty in disestablishing slavery, but they would afford a fresh opportunity for the young men of England to obtain useful work. He congratulated the Government on having adopted the policy of the Party to which he belonged.

said, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had formerly opposed the proposal to construct a rail-i way he also had been hostile to the scheme. He still believed that at that time any such attempt would have been ill advised, and would have resulted in bloodshed, but circumstances had now changed, and he intended to vote with the Government because he thought they might now safely undertake the protectorate, and indeed, there was no option but to do so. By undertaking this protectorate we had certainly largely increased our national responsibilities, and therefore it was desirable that we should have such authority as would enable us to control those foreigners who might settle in the country. If the railway to Ugunda could only be constructed by forced labour he should not even now be in sympathy with its construction. But he thought the term "forced labour" would hardly be found to be applicable to the kind of labour it was contemplated to employ in the work, for he understood that it would be labour hired for wage and willingly rendered for wage. Still, he should await with much interest the remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt make on this point at a later period of the Debate. There were what were called domestic slaves in Zanzibar and on the mainland, but those people were employed for wage and willingly gave their labour for wage. Such men had been engaged as carriers by Stanley, and by every one of the pioneers who had explored the interior. It might be true that many of those men deserted, but they did so only from timidity. He did not suppose there would be any difficulty in obtaining the services of such men in the construction of the railway, and though their labour in this and similar cases was termed forced, or slave, labour he believed it would be found to be much of the same class of labour as that employed in our own country—labour hired and willingly given for wages. Having undertaken the protectorate, it was important and desirable that communication with the interior should be opened up, at least as far as the protectorate extended. He did not agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, however, that that communication should be extended to the unsettled regions round about Uganda. They had gone far enough at present in going to Uganda, where they had already established themselves and introduced a certain degree of settled Government. There was another reason which had induced him to take up the position he now assumed on the matter. They had been told how the trade of Lancashire was suffering from the competition of the Chinese and Japanese; and, as the representative of a Lancashire constituency, he knew what had boon the feeling in the county owing to the levying of the Indian Import Duties. Lancashire undoubtedly had been passing through a long and severe time of depression, and if as a Government or a Parliament they could do anything to develop or increase the trade of the country they ought to do it without hesitation, and the best way of securing that advantage was by the opening up of new markets. He believed the construction of the railway to Uganda would have that effect, would largely benefit East Africa, and would at the same time confer great advantages on the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country. On those grounds he should support the Government in the action they had taken.

said that, last year, he voted against the Government because he believed that it was impossible for this country to govern and administer Uganda successfully unless there were some easy means of transit between that country and the coast. He still held that opinion. But the Government had that night told the House of a great change in their policy and had stated that they intended to construct a railway in Uganda. That being the case he should vote in support of their policy. He believed that, if a railway were constructed, it would be possible to successfully develop and administer the country. There would, no doubt, be objections urged against the building of the railway—and, indeed, against our staying in Uganda at all—by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. The hon. Member urged the same objections again and again whenever there was any question of this country acquiring any territory in any part of the world. For his part he had very little sympathy with the objections that his hon. Friend always took, and in this case he had less sympathy than usual with him. He believed that at the present time when we were losing market after market, and when our trade was so depressed, it was necessary for us to endeavour to obtain new ones; and he had hopes that in the future there would be a great market developed in Uganda for the trade of this country. Another reason why he would support the Government was—that he believed their policy was calculated to put down slavery in Central Africa. He agreed with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that if they took this step they would have to go further; but he was so convinced that what was contemplated would not only serve the interests of this country, but also those of the inhabitants of Central Africa, that he should not hesitate to vote with the Government on that occasion.

said, that his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to approach matters such as were now under consideration with the acquisitiveness of a magpie. His hon. Friend was in favour of the extension of the Empire. The world, however, was limited, and other countries would not be likely to permit us to pursue a policy of continuous annexation. If he had not arrived at the age when nothing could surprise one, he should certainly have felt surprised when the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs laid down the policy of the Government. He was curious to know how many of the Under Secretary's colleagues agreed with him. He regretted greatly that Parliament did not exercise more control over our Foreign Affairs, which at the present moment were managed by two noblemen. The first step in this Uganda business was the granting of a charter to the East Africa Company, whose expansive policy the Under Secretary appeared to think commanded general admiration. Having made treaties with the kings, the company came to the conclusion that their speculation was a bad one, and they announced to the Government that they intended to withdraw. Lord Salisbury was then Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was a Jingo, but there was method in his madness, and he took good care not to annex Uganda or to convert it into a Protectorate. But his successor, the present Prime Minister, announced that his policy was to "peg out claims for futurity" in Africa, and the Liberal Party apparently accepted that policy, as they accepted every single proposal submitted to them by Her Majesty's Government. [An hon. MEMBER: "No!"] Why, the hon. Member himself had just made a speech in which he renounced all his former views and did his best to rival the Jingoism of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. When the present Ministry came into Office the House was told that a Commissioner was to go to Uganda with a free hand. He knew at the time that that meant that the Commissioner would annex Uganda. In fact, the Commissioner, before starting, declared that that was his intention. He raised the British flag in Uganda, and then some sort of vague administration was set up in the country. Now we were asked to establish a protectorate between Uganda and the sea-shore and to buy out the company, and it was intended to build a railway from the coast to Uganda. The best proof that this policy was bad and illiberal was that the Conservative Party had acclaimed it with wild cheers. They were asked to vote £30,000 for the administration of the country lying between Uganda and the sea-coast. What was the nature of this territory for the administration of which this money was wanted? In a letter published in The Times that morning, Captain Lugard said:—

"The Company, whose administration has long been paralysed by the state of suspended animation, in which the protracted negotiations with Government have placed them, has now been dispossessed. Various proclamations and actions by the Government have had the effect of discrediting them. The result is what might with confidence have been anticipated. Constant trouble with Witu has involved the Government in much expense and loss of life, and in the last few days, since it was known that the company were to go, we hear that the powerful Arab chief Mbarak bin Rashid, who for years waged war with the Sultan, has risen in arms. Still more recently we hear that Baroka of Takaungu is hending a second revolt, and it is announced that punitive expeditions are to be organised against each. In another direction the Consul-General has had to order the armed occupation of three stations on the Tana against Somali raids, and we may hear any day of fresh trouble with the Masai and Wa-Kikuyu.

That was the territory which the hon Gentleman (Mr. Snape) thanked the Government for describing as a glorious accession to the British Empire. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said he did not suppose any one would suggest the alternative policy of Withdrawal. Well, he would take the liberty of suggesting it at once, and the sooner it was done the better. The country, they were told, would be an accession to the British Empire. Unfortunately Europeans could not live in it. ["No."] Perhaps he was wrong in saying they could not live in it. But at all events Europeans could not colonise the country, because they could not bring up white children. It would be like the position of India, to which Europeans might be able to go and live a few years, but they would have to send their wives and children, back to England. It was obvious, therefore, that accounts in the newspapers of a happy population of English labourers going out there with their wives and families, dwelling in these swamps and jungles, were utter nonsense. On what grounds wore we to go there? He had been told over and over again that it was absolutely necessary to go there in order to put an end to the slave trade. There never was a greater piece of humbug ever palmed off upon good, well-meaning, innocent philanthropists since the commencement of the world. There was no slave trade in Uganda. There was domestic slavery, but no slaves. It was in Zanzibar and Pemba, which was really to all intents and purposes a portion of the British Empire, that we had the greatest slave market in the world, and what was the result? The result was that naturally the Arab slave catchers in the centre of Africa went on catching slaves and sending them down to the market we ourselves provided for them. Moreover, by means of this slave population we were enabled to get their labour as porters and carriers, and we were obliged—we who were so boastful of our putting down the slave trade, and must needs go to Uganda in order to do it—we had to hire these slaves and send them to Uganda as porters. That in itself produced the demand which produced the supply. By turning our attention to the quarter indicated, it was obvious we should do infinitely more to put an end to slavery than if we were to go to Uganda. The other thing was the extension of markets for British goods. What was it his hon. Friend wanted to be exported from Uganda, and what imported?

Cotton goods

And what are we to buy with those goods?

African produce.

Well, that is vague. As already pointed out, the only possible produce was produced by slaves there. And surely his hon. Friend—he did not know if he had travelled in the interior of Africa—was aware that the very last thing a negro thought of doing was to work in order to exchange his goods with the products of other countries. No, what he wanted was gin, and a gun and some powder in order to shoot his neighbour when he got the chance. But, as he understood, gin and gunpowder were just the things we were not going to allow these natives to be supplied with; and, therefore, when they talked about extending the markets of the world by the annexation of Uganda it was perfect nonsense. The truth was, in this matter we drew out the chestnuts for the German, who were a little more unscrupulous than we, and managed to get his gin and gunpowder up there and to sweep in any little products there were in exchange for the gin and gunpowder. All this, however, was just so many pleas put forward. The real reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious to make this annexation in Central Africa was that they had a grand Jingo dream of Empire. They seemed to think we were always going to stop in Egypt, but we had pledged ourselves to leave Egypt, and could not put in a claim for the whole territory between Uganda and Egypt simply because we had looted Uganda and were staying in Egypt in defiance of our honourable pledges to the whole of Europe. Now, about this railway: he looked forward to a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, because he was a follower, in this matter, of the Chancellor the Exchequer. He remembered the noble speech his right hon. Leader made, he thought, in the last Parliament. If he had needed conversion, his right hon. Friend's speech would have thoroughly convinced him that of all the absurd, ridiculous things ever imagined by the mind of man, the absurdest and most ridiculous was that of spending money to build a railway between the coast and Uganda. Did the Under Secretary know how many Europeans there were at present in Uganda? There were 20, and yet it was recommended as a sound measure of economy to build a railway of 800 miles in order to feed these 20 Europeans! Was the railway expected to pay? Oh, no; it was not pretended that it would pay. The cost, they were told, would be two millions. But, ho asked the Committee, did they not always discover when a Government, wanting to do some public work in a free and easy way, mentioned two millions, that it cost four? He had no doubt this railway would cost four millions. And not only would there be the cost of those four millions, but we should have to maintain that railroad. If they were so very anxious to make railways, surely it was more reasonable to try to bring their own agricultural produce at home to their markets cheaply than to make railways in Uganda. Moreover, if they were to engage in such undertakings in England they would be employing English labour, whereas in Uganda they would have to employ slave labour. This Vote was divided into two portions, and the first was for the administration of the country between Uganda and the sea-coast. In the speeches delivered on the same day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present President of the Board of Trade in the last Parliament, both right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there were nothing but wild and savage tribes and deserts in this part of the country; and why they should pay £30,000 per annum to establish a protectorate there, and have the silly boast and swagger that they had increased and extended the British Empire, he really did not know. The second Vote was to give £50,000 to the Company. If ever a Company deserved little or nothing from an English Parliament it was the East Africa Company. The Company obtained their Charter, which they based on a Concession of ten miles of the coast which they had hired from the then Government of Zanzibar. They were to pay £10,000 per annum for this Concession, and they had the right to levy Duties with which to pay the £10,000, the expenses of administration, and a good, sound, philanthropic dividend to themselves. Besides this, the Charter gave them powers over the country behind this slip of coast. They were now told that although the Company had paid absolutely nothing to the Zanzibar Government, and although they had found they could not work the Concession at a profit, they were actually to receive £200,000 for giving up a Concession which cost them nothing. That was monstrous; but, as if they did not receive enough, this country was to pay them an additional sum of £50,000. What this was for he was waiting to hear. An hon. Member said it was for work they had done in. the territory beyond the coast. What was that work? They had acted in the meanest and most disreputable way ever Englishmen acted. They went up to Uganda, made treaties with the King and Chiefs, pledged themselves to remain there and support the Chiefs, and when they found it was a bad speculation they threw over the treaties, sneaked out of the country, and appealed to the British Government to take their place. ["No, no!"] They had, he contended, announced that, whether the Government took their place or not, they would withdraw from their obligations, and if a debtor and creditor account were to be opened between the Company and the Government—which meant the country—the latter ought really to receive from, instead of pay anything to, the Company for taking over their obligations. Another reason why he opposed the grant to the Company was, because at the present moment claims were made against them by France on account of the cruel way they were alleged to have treated the Catholic inhabitants of Uganda; and until they knew to what extent this country might be responsible for those Catholic claims they ought certainly to pay nothing to the Company. He knew they were told that the Company was made up of philanthropists—but they were business philanthropists, a prospectus they issued for more capital being one of those flowery documents eminently calculated to attract the poor widow and orphans. Some of the members of this Company had already received titles. They had been made baronets, knights, and such-like things, which were the delight of all business philanthropists; but, not satisfied with this, they now wanted the country to give them £50,000 for a Concession which they could not work, and which they had received from Zanzibar for absolutely nothing. He regretted all these African annexations, and he still more regretted that the Government were taking so favourable a view of the plutocracy of this country. Whenever the question was one which affected rich men the Government were always ready to help them; but if it had been two or three hundred poor men who had lost their money they would have had to whistle a long time before they got £50,000. He was against all annexation of territory, no matter where it was. Such territories cost them an enormous amount of money, and they did not repay their cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that the limits of taxation were already reached, and therefore he, was a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's having assented to the limits being extended by the expenditure of these large sums in Central Africa. There had been a falling-off on the Treasury Bench from the principles that distinguished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. He read a letter from that right hon. Gentleman the other day, in which he said he went all the length in—

"denouncing the strain, and would almost say the insane strain, of ideas and opinions with respect to defensive establishments (so-called) which has obtained such a hold on the public mind. It is well-nigh enough to make our fathers and grandfathers rise from their graves and walk around howling."

He had not walked out of his grave, but he made no apology for standing up in that House and howling in despair at these wild and reckless annexations; and he could well understand the right hon. Member for Midlothian joining in howling against the Government on those matters. He protested against this policy. What would happen in the next Parliament, supposing the Unionists obtained a majority? In times gone by there were, in regard to this question, but two Parties in the House—one Party in favour of the annexation of territory and the enlargement of the Empire; the other Party not so much in favour of it. The fact that there was an Opposition had a controlling effect on Conservative Governments in this matter. But supposing a Conservative Government got into Office, they would be able to say when any Radical protest was made against their policy: "Look at your own Leaders; we are not worse than they. In fact, we are better than they, because we do not go so wildly and so recklessly as they did." It was probable that jingo craze in regard to Africa would go on for a certain number of years;—he did not think it would go on longer than a certain number of years; but meantime they would have spent enormous sums of the taxpayers' money, and put themselves into antagonism with many of the countries with whom they wished to remain friends.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked the House why it was that the announcement made to the House on behalf of the Government was made by my hon. Friend who so ably represents the Foreign Office in this House. The answer is a very simple one. Certainly, so far as I am concerned in the management of the Business of the House or of the Government Business, I always think that men, especially of the signal ability of my hon. Friend, should be the spokesmen of their Departments (hear, hear); and for me to have taken the matter out of the hands of my hon. Friend, who in so distinguished a manner has represented his Department on this and other questions, would have been on my part very unworthy conduct. I do not think that I have ever done anything in this House to induce hon. Members to believe that I should shrink from any responsibility attaching to myself in regard to this or any other matter. I am perfectly willing to accept the whole of the responsibility which belongs to me in regard to the policy and proposals now laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asks me whether I have changed my opinion on the subject of Uganda. I have not changed my opinion at all. What was the position in which the present Government found themselves in reference to the occupation of Uganda? When they came into Office they found the Company that had come forward—as I said at the time, and as I still think—most imprudently, without sufficient resources, to occupy Uganda That Company had entirely failed to sustain the position it had assumed, and in the time of the late Government they had given notice that they intended to abandon Uganda, and the late Government accepted that notice on the part of the Company with respect to Uganda. That was just before the change of Government. The late Government had made no provision for what was to follow from the evacuation of Uganda by the Company. The responsibility then attached to the present Government of determining what was to be done. We considered, as we stated at the time to the House, that it was impossible, in the position of the British occupation of Uganda, that we could leave it derelict, as it had become in the hands of the East Africa Company. We found it necessary to sustain that occupation in the situation the Company had placed it. For a time the occupation of the Company was continued. That position was found impossible by the Company and by the Government, and therefore it became necessary to—I do not know the phrase to use—to expropriate the Company, not only from the part of the country which they had themselves abandoned, but also from that part of the territory stretching along the coast, which unquestionably was profitable to them. Then arose this situation. The Government felt themselves bound to occupy Uganda and the territory that was still in the hunds of the Company, unprovided with administration or with the means of treating with the intervening territory, as it was necessary it should be treated in order to maintain communications with Uganda, of which the Government had undertaken the occupation. The question then arose, What were the inevitable consequences or corollary of that occupation? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton takes the line that it is an absurdity to hold Uganda. But even he admitted that if we were to occupy it we must establish some means of communication less extravagant and less expensive than the present means of communication by caravan from the coast to Uganda. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked me whether I hold to the opinions I have expressed as to the objections to the occupation. I have seen no reason whatever to alter my opinion on the subject. We consented to occupy Uganda because of the situation in which we found ourselves. I know there are people who pretend to be better judges and better prophets in these matters than any other men. There are people who believe Uganda is to be an Ei Dorado, if not of gold, then of profit of some kind or other. I am old enough to have heard a number of prophecies of that description. I remember how Asia Minor was to be turned into a paradise, how the steam plough was to cultivate Armenia. That was some 12 or 15 years ago; but the steam plough is not cultivating Armenia to-day. We were also told that Cyprus was to be an outlet for our commerce, and was to render us immense profits. These vaticinations did not turn out to be well founded; and I must be permitted now to be sceptical as to whether we are going to establish a flourishing colony where white men are to cultivate the ground under the Equator. I still doubt the probability of that event. I know there are people who think that you can establish a new India under the Line. I doubt that. They may turn out to be right and I to be wrong; but I say that up to the present I have seen no ground for altering that opinion. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to one particular point upon which I had at the time insisted. And I would remind the House that when I was speaking on that occasion against the railway, it was against the railway that was to be made for the convenience of this joint stock company who were then in occupation of Uganda. I was not speaking of a railway which was to go through British territory, and which we found it necessary to establish there. But the point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is one of very great consequence, and one which I think has not been gravely considered by this House or by people outside as it deserves to be. You are going to deal with communities and with countries in which the social condition is one of slavery. You are going to undertake the protectorate of a vast territory in which your protectorate must be conducted amongst people to whom domestic slavery is an actual and a necessary condition of life. In my opinion it is difficult, and it will become more difficult every day, to reconcile those conditions with the sentiments held by English people in reference to slavery. We have not been able yet to gauge exactly the actual expense of abolishing slavery in Zanzibar. Are you going to undertake to abolish domestic slavery in the whole of Central Africa? Have you any conception of what that operation will be? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the labour by which this railway is to be made. What is the labour that is now employed in the locality, and which carries goods from Zanzibar to Uganda? What was the labour with which Stanley was supplied in his celebrated journey from the Congo to the lakes? Where are you going to get the labour, which is necessary? Supposing that your expectations are entirely fulfilled; supposing that you do create a great and flourishing trade in those parts, you will develop, no doubt, a demand for labour; but what is the labour, and what is the source from which you are to obtain it? These are matters which require much graver consideration than has yet been applied to them; and the people who talk about these enterprises as being enterprises that are to diminish slavery seem to me to have given very little consideration to the conditions with which they will have to deal. These are the grounds which lead me to believe, that if the matter had to be begun de novo you would require to give it much greater consideration before entering on an enterprise of this character. But we have stated—and we adhere to that statement—that, in the position in which we found ourselves with Uganda so occupied, we were unable to retire from the country, and were obliged to maintain our position there. All that is proposed by this Vote is the necessary and inevitable consequence of that position, and to that I am prepared to adhere. There is only one other point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to which I must refer. I must express my deep regret at the provocative language which he used to France. I think language of that kind, especially coming from a gentleman in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, is much to be deplored. When he called upon us to state what it was that we were prepared to do if France entered upon action hostile to this country, I think he was employing language which was most mischievous and most dangerous to the peace of the world. [Cries of "Oh!"] He talked about pax Britannica. I do not know whether the occupation of Central Africa would be best described as pax Britannica, but the language in which the right hon. Gentleman indulged towards a friendly nation like France is language which does not in any way tend towards the pax Britannica. The right hon. Gentleman said that all his prophecies had been fulfilled, and he made a further prophecy, and demanded to know whether the Government considered it part of their policy to occupy Unyoro and to extend their occupation and dominion to the Valley of the Nile. I have no hesitation in saying that is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government; it is no part of the policy we have proposed in this Vote. The Government were not responsible for the original policy of the occupation of Uganda. Having found Uganda occupied, and feeling that the country could not honourably retire from the obligations into which it had entered, they have determined to take upon themselves the responsibility of the occupation of the territory of Uganda. They have defined the limits of that occupation. The proposals which are now made in the Vote for the administration of the territory intervening between Uganda and the coast are the necessary consequences of that policy. It is upon that ground that we ask the House to support this Vote.

I am very loth to trouble the Committee again, but as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is professedly an answer to certain questions I addressed to him, I hope the Committee will bear with me while I say one or two words in regard to his answer. In his concluding observations he reproached me with having used provocative language towards the friendly Power of France, and with having, in fact, used language which was dangerous to the peace of the world. I beg to say, in my opinion, that is nothing but a bit of political claptrap of the very lowest kind, a device which the fight hon. Gentleman is frequently accustomed to use in this House, but of which we have never had a more glaring example than upon the present occasion. The language I quoted was the language of his own Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues whether they were prepared to give us any further information with regard to the situation which was exposed to us by the Under Secretary. I used no word of my own which by any possibility of construction could be construed as being provocative to France or calculated to disturb the peace of the world. I stated to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, had declared that a particular act on the part of France would be considered as an unfriendly act by this Government. We listened to that statement almost in silence, leaving of course the responsibility of it to Her Majesty's Government. I asked whether the Government had any assurance that no steps were being taken which would lead up to this act which they had declared would be unfriendly, and, if not, whether they could give us any assurance which would be satisfactory to us. Under these circumstances it is nothing more or less than unfair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accuse me of having introduced provocative language. Of course it was intended as a rhetorical device to divert the attention of the Committee from the business immediately before it. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to answer questions I had addressed to him, and he proceeded to answer questions I had not addressed to him. I never asked him whether he had changed his mind as to the original occupation of Uganda, although he has elaborately told us be not changed his mind, and that he still entertains the objection which he always expressed to that occupation. That had nothing to do with the point I put before the Committee. I never asked him about the occupation of the intervening territory, or whether he had changed his mind about it. The points I asked him about were exclusively confined to the railway. On a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said this railway could not be made without the employment of forced labour, without the employment of what I showed to be an army of 14,000 men, and that it would do more to promote slavery than to prevent it. I asked him whether he had changed his mind upon these questions. At the moment he intervened and said in regard to the first of the questions he had not changed his mind, and I assumed that he had not changed his mind on the other point. In the speech he has just made, the right hon. Gentleman has not alluded to any one of those points except by implication, because he has elaborately told us that we ought gravely to consider the situation before we proceed to make a railroad in a country in which slavery prevails. Who ought to consider it? Who are the persons responsible for making this railway? It is not the House of Commons; it is the Government. In this case from whom is he asking for more consideration? I suppose from his colleagues. We come to the personal position of the right hon. Gentleman. I accept the position of the Government; to me it is entirely satisfactory. I do not think an army of 14,000 or forced labour will be required. I believe the railway will do more to prevent slavery in Central Africa than all the squadrons we have had there, at an expenditure of £200,000 a year, for more than a quarter of a century. I do not anticipate any of the dangers the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, but I say upon him a moral responsibility is imposed to tell us whether he has changed his mind in regard to these evils which he foresees and predicts. If he had come forward and told us that on further consideration he had changed his mind, we should have nothing to say. A man would be a fool who did not change his mind when he had information which justified the change, and I have not the slightest intention of blaming the right hon. Gentleman for changing his mind if he tells us he has done so upon sufficient ground. He, however, tells us he has not changed his mind; and yet he is deliberately participating in a policy which he has declared would be followed by these tremendous evils. What is the real situation? The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority in his own Government. He retains his own opinion, he is outnumbered, and he accepts the opinion of his colleagues. Even that is not a criminal offence. I suppose anybody who knows anything about Governments or about the proceedings of any number of men who agree to work together for a general policy knows perfectly well there are many occasions on which there must be difference of opinion and on which the minority must yield to the majority. But the question, the only question for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee is whether the issues in this case are of sufficient importance to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taking up a decided position. I have pointed out what the issues are. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer you are going by this Vote, to which he is still opposed, but on which he has been overborne by his colleagues in the Cabinet—you are going to promote slavery in Africa; you are going to involve this country in the expenditure necessary to send an army to make the railway and to guard the railway; and you are going deliberately to make this railway, knowing you can only make it with the assistance of forced labour. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks there are minor questions which he may properly subordinate to the major question of keeping his Party together, that is a matter for himself alone, and we only take notice of the result. But I have pointed out that, so far from his speech being an answer to my questions, he has deliberately ignored every one of those questions.

said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a most admirable speech against the Vote. It only remained for the right hon. Gentleman to follow up his speech by voting in the lobby with the hon. Member for Northampton, and he hoped that he would take with him the Chief Secretary, who appeared to be thoroughly enjoying the Debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not mentioned the grounds on which the hon. Member for Northampton and others were voting against this proposal. The main point j against the grant to the company was the question of the Catholic claims, to which not one reference had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though in itself it was fatal to the Vote. The other point was the question of the railway on its merits. Would the country believe that the Government which had made such violent speeches against the railway in the past, had now, through the voice of the Under Secretary, announced that the railway was to be made, and without a single estimate or statement as to one farthing of the expenditure? How could the country be expected to pay money to the company until the question of the Roman Catholic claims had been disposed of? One of the conditions of the evacuation by the company was that

"the Government did not intend to take upon themselves any of the liabilities incurred by the company or its agents in respect to Uganda,—Africa 1, 1893, p. 22."

Those words were used because of the existence of the very liabilities which the Government now admitted that M. Waddington, the French Ambassador, pressed for compensation, in respect of these Roman Catholic claims, for the acts of Capain Lugard, who was the agent of the company. In the first interview Lord Rosebery took very strong ground against the French Government, though he toned down his language later. Since November 8, 1893, no statement had been made by the Government in reference to these Roman Catholic claims, except that they were still under discussion. It was known from private sources that two successive missions had been sent to Uganda by the Government to consider these claims. Yet the House had never been told what those Reports were or what was the amount of money for which the French Government asked. It was monstrous that the House should be called upon to vote this money in the circumstances. What was the war in which those damages were incurred? He was not going to assume that there were any damages for which this country ought to be liable. The case of Captain Lugard had been laid before Parliament, and in his statement it was said that the French bishops served out breechloaders for the purpose of continuing the war, and that they got what they deserved. Captain Lugard went on to tell the company—

"for the rest, the large amount of ivory captured by us in the war will largely indemnify the company's expenses in connection with the fighting."—Africa 2, 1893, p. 65.

Therefore Parliament had a lien on this money, and they ought not to part with it to the company until the question of the Roman Catholic claims had been settled. Dealing next with the project of the railway, he said that he was not opposed, like his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, in all circumstances to an extension of Imperial responsibilities, because he believed it was a wise thing for this country to incur responsibilities, and to accept territory on coasts where it could carry on trade. But here the Government were going to make a railway to which they had been long opposed, though there was not a farthing taken in the Vote towards its construction, nor was the smallest estimate for work laid before the House. The Government had an estimate two years ago in the Report of the Mombasa Railway Survey. Did they mean to accept the estimate there given, or was it to be less or more than the cost suggested in that Report? On a former occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no trade in the country, and the right hon. Gentleman quoted Captain Lugard. Sir Gerald Portal could also be quoted to the effect that there was no slave trade in Uganda. The market for the slaves was in Zanzibar and Pemba, and the slaves came through the German sphere of influence from the British Protectorate in Nyassaland. Although Sir Gerald Portal went to Uganda with a foregone conclusion in favour of a railway and annexation, he reported that there was no trade, and that there would not be any trade, there. Something had been said in favour of the climate, but he reminded those hon. Members who supported Uganda for its climate, that Sir Gerald Portal and many officers had been invalided home in succession—a fact which showed, not only that European children could not be reared there, but that it was a dangerous climate even for hardy European soldiers who went there in the prime of life. Did hon. Members remember the words of General Gordon with reference to the whole of the equatorial provinces, including Uganda? General Gordon said:—

"There can be no trade, for they have nothing to exchange for goods. Poor creatures! They would like to be left alone."

Those were Gordon's words of testimony at the end of his second term of office as Governor General of the Sudan. Sir Gerald Portal pointed out in connection with the railroad that there were no natural means of communication to Uganda through the sphere now being made into Protectorates. This new Protectorate was not on the natural road to Uganda at all. In the War Office Report of September, 1892, it was stated that the natural means of communication—the natural approach to Uganda—had always been by water through the German territory. This was the shorter route in time and the easiest, as it was the old-established trade route. We were now trying to develop trade through a sterile and hostile country by artificial means of communication. It never paid, however, to drive trade away from its natural route, and it would not pay now. With regard to the slave trade and the making of the railway, enough had been said that evening. He would, however, remind the House that another great African power had tried making railways in Africa, and had been nearly ruined by it. He referred to the Congo Free State. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had watched that experiment. The Belgian Government which, at the wish of the King of the Belgians, had promoted the union of the Congo Free State with the Belgian Crown, had been obliged to abandon its great measure, to amend the Belgian Constitution, because of the ruin caused to the finances of the Congo Free State through the making of the railway. Her Majesty's Government had told the Committee nothing as to what the Uganda Railway was to cost. In the Report on the cost of the Mombasa railway, the initial cost was alone stated to be pound;2,240,000. That was not the total amount that would have to be paid or guaranteed, and there was, besides, an admitted loss upon the working expenses. Moreover, the line was found to be shorter than was originally supposed; yet, such were the difficulties met with in its construction that the cost would be what he had stated, plus the loss on the working expenses; and there would be a loss which was estimated at pages 60 to 62 of the Report. It was said that the line was to be made by labour imported from India, and not a single man was to be employed from that part of Africa. From a pure question of £ s. d., it was said that every man employed on that railway must be brought from India and must be selected from certain parts of India. And, not only so, but they were to be protected by an armed force, which would at least have to be considerable, and would have to be employed during the whole time of the construction of the line. The railway would run through the territory of the Masai, who might perhaps recover their former pluck and fight again as they fought before. It was monstrous that the House of Commons should be asked, not exactly to spend the money on making the railway, for this they were not at present asked to do, but, as it were, implicity to sanction the railway by that night's Debate, so that Votes might be asked for on account of the railway on a future occasion. It had been said in the Debate that evening that it was generally understood that the railway was to be made, but some Members of the House would, like himself, protest as strongly as possibly against this course. He did so in no little England spirit. He was not in favour of a universal restriction of our responsibilities, but he was in favour of restricting them in the interior of Africa. He was convinced that we should never see our money back, and he would never cease to protest against the whole of this Uganda business.

did not think it would be necessary for him to defend the Government either against their recalcitrant supporters or against their Leader in the House of Commons. He thought that they might congratulate themselves and the country that the Foreign Department of the Government was not controlled by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were a good many statements just made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, which came upon him with surprise and which he proposed briefly to deal with. But, first, he would ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to give the Committee some more definite statement in regard to the administration of the ten-mile strip, which was at present a British Protectorate, which was in the strange position of being a portion of Zanzibar, a British Protectorate, and yet was under concession from the Sultan of Zanzibar to the British East Africa Company. If he understood the Under Secretary correctly, it was intended to sever the connection which now existed between the Zanzibar Island Protectorate and the Zanzibar ten-mile strip. It was important to do it for this reason, because in the Zanzibar Protectorate all treaties with foreign countries run, with the various complicated jurisdic-dictions of foreign consuls towards their own subjects and towards their protected followers. This matter was of great importance—nay, almost of vital importance. We ought to get rid of these treaties, and free ourselves of these responsibilies as far as the ten-mile strip goes. Therefore he asked whether the ten-mile strip was to remain a portion of the Zanzibar Protectorate or was to form a portion of the new Protectorate which would cover the whole district from the coast up to the lake. He further desired to ask whether the new Protectorate was to be under the control of our Consul General at Zanzibar, or was it to be a separate Protectorate? That at Uganda now was a separate one—it reported directly to the Foreign Office; and the Commissioner was in no way responsible to, and did not report to, Mr. Harding at Zanzibar. Was it contemplated to make this new Protectorate subsidiary to that at Zanzibar, or was it contemplated to establish an independent Protectorate? He thought the Government would be well-advised if they were to establish a totally independent one. The interests of that part of Africa were different from those of the islands, which, besides, was a very inconvenient place from which to administer the new Protectorate. It was not as healthy as Mombasa, which would be much more convenient, and would be the starting-point and basis of the railway. Therefore, it would be desirable that the official in charge of the new Protectorate should have his headquarters there, instead of on an island 30 or 40 miles away from the mainland. With regard to the proposed payment of £50,000, it was not for him to say it was too large, nor was it incumbent on him to say it was too small; but, speaking for others as well as himself, he might say that they considered it a not unfair sum under the circumstances to give to the Company, and, therefore, Her Majesty's Government in proposing it would have the support of the Opposition. But he must enter one caveat against the great delay there had been in arriving at a settlement of the question. In this respect the Government had acted rather unfairly against the Company. The Company gave notice in July 1892—three years ago—that they were going to withdraw, and from that time onwards it had been evident that the position of the Company was untenable. Over and over again the Company asked the Government to submit the question to arbitration, and over and over again the Government refused. The proceedings were dragged out to great length, and the Company had some ground of complaint as to delay. At all events, now that an agreement had been come to, it would only be fair to the Company to bring matters to a conclusion as soon as this Vote was passed. It was not fair to the Company and their servants that they should have to carry on the administration with a rope round their necks. Another point he desired to mention was that of the Catholic claims. He had no official knowledge of what had been going oil since 1892; but he could not help thinking that the fact that Her Majesty's Government had not referred to them in any way indicated that the Government had decided not to meet them. [Sir C. DILKE: "They are under discussion in Paris."] That might be, but still he should be much surprised if the Government were to say they still considered the question an open one. He could not help thinking the Government had come to the conclusion that what the Roman Catholics had suffered was, in a great measure, if not entirely, due to their own action. The most important point of all was the announcement made as to the construction of a railway. He could not conceive how it would be possible, except at an extravagant cost, to retain our position in Uganda without constructing a railway. From Mr. Stanley to Colonel Colvile the chain of evidence in favour of a railway was unbroken. The right hon. Baronet opposite talked about difficulties in making it, and of navvies and plate-layers defended by an army. But what happened in the case of the railway survey? [Sir C. DILKE: "That is their report."] He had read it through twice that day, and did not find any statements bearing out the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not find anything in the report of the Railway Survey to that effect, but he found this:—

"The line as recommended is a good one.…There are no great, or even serious, difficulties to be overcome.… The work over the greater portion is of a very easy nature."

The fact that the survey party had not only traversed the whole of the ground along which it was proposed to make the railway, but had considered other possible lines of route, without the protection of soldiers with rifles posted every 100 yards, was absolute proof that the railway could be made without any difficulty or fear of attack on the part of the natives. The Report, from beginning to end, showed that the line would be a fairly easy line to make from an engineering point of view, and would be as cheap a line to make as many Indian lines had been. With regard to forced labour, the whole of the estimates of the survey of the line were based on the introduction of Indian coolie labour. The strategical necessity for making the line was generally admitted. The hon. Member for Northampton, in a certain periodical for which he was responsible, said:—

"Without a railway our annexation of Uganda is criminal folly, and contrary to the first elements of military strategy."

The commercial advantages of the railway could not be doubted. Every important Chamber of Commerce which considered this question two years ago passed resolutions in favour of the line being made, expecting to derive commercial advantages from it. Sir Gerald Portal, on page 37 of the Blue Book, said:—

"The prospect of the creation of profitable British trade, the suppression of internecine religious war, the control of the Lake District and the Upper Waters of the Nile are our only hope of killing the slave trade within a reasonable time. All resolves itself into the important and overshadowing question of transport communication;"

and he pointed out that the only thing to be done was to make a railway. This was our own British Commissioner, sent out to inquire into the matter. For himself, there was one matter to which he attached more importance—the carrying out of our obligations to foreign countries. By the first Article of the Brussels Act all the Powers agreed that the best means of stopping the slave trade was to promote railways from the coast line into the interior, so as to strike a blow at the slave traders and raiders to be found there. The French had already two railways in their Protectorate of Senegal; the Germans were making a railway in their sphere of influence in East Africa; the Portuguese were making a railway on the West Coast of Africa; and the Congo Free State was making a railway within its territories. Although we were the foremost nation in promoting the Conference which resulted in the Brussels Act, until that day we had declined to take any step in furtherance of the first Article. The right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed the idea of the railway being able to stop the traffic in slaves. But the map issued with the Report of the Railway Survey marked out the slave caravan routes, and showed there were no fewer than three routes running from Victoria Nyanza to the East Coast alongside of which the proposed railway would run. It was obvious that if the railway was once built we should be able to stop the caravans of slaves carrying down ivory to the coast, because the railway carriage would be so much cheaper than conveyance by slaves. There was nothing so expensive as human porterage. The human being walked more slowly than any other animal, he carried less, he ate more, and fell more easily a prey to the climate. For these reasons and for many others he entirely approved of the proposal to construct this line. In conclusion, he could only express his regret that Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to include in the Vote some sum which might be taken as a first instalment towards carrying out their intentions in this matter.

In reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member opposite I can only say that I can promise that as soon as the formalities connected with surrender of the Company's Charter are complete the transfer shall take place with as little delay as possible. With regard to the question of the protectorate, I may point out that the word "protectorate" is hardly as important as that of "administration." Uganda remains a separate protectorate and a separate administration. Vitu will remain a separate protectorate. The ten-mile strip will remain a part of Zanzibar, and in that sense would also be a separate protectorate. The intervening country between the ten-mile strip and Uganda will also become a protectorate; but these three will remain under one administration, which is really the important thing. There is no change in regard to any territory on the further side of Uganda.

asked whether, as far as the ten-mile strip was concerned, the treaties with Zanzibar would cease.

The ten-mile strip will remain a part of Zanzibar and subject to the same liabilities as the rest of Zanzibar. With regard to the railways, many questions, such as that of the gauge, the construction, and the nature of the labour, will have to be inquired into. No decision upon these has yet been come to.

asked whether the results of these inquiries would be communicated to Parliament during the present Session.

I am unable to say at present. I can only say that there will be no unnecessary delay. With regard to the Roman Catholic claims, it is undoubtedly the fact that Her Majesty's Government have in recent times made an offer to the French Government with regard to those claims, but no settlement of them has been arrived at. In making that offer, however, Her Majesty's Government never admitted that on the merits of the case they were convinced that there was any liability on their part. They made that offer as a simple act of good will to the French Government, and in deference to the views which had been put forward by that Government. Her Majesty's Government offered in respect of those claims not as large a sum as hon. Members appear to suppose as part of the general settlement. The Committee will surely admit that in such circumstances the questions could only be settled by mutual consent. The fact that you are prepared to make concessions as an act of good will is not necessarily an admission that you are convinced of the merits of the point of view of the other Government. I hope that in future negotiations both the French Government and Her Majesty's Government will be ready, from time to time, to take into consideration the points of view of each other which they might not themselves be able to accept, because they recognised that mutual concessions were necessary to a satisfactory settlement. The position as regards these claims will not be altered by this vote or by this transfer. The Committee will not be justified in holding the East Africa Company responsible unless, after careful inquiry, you are convinced on the very clearest evidence that, undoubtedly, Captain Lugard had made such mistakes that the Company which had employed him could fairly be held liable for damage done which might have been averted. At the time this damage was caused Captain Lugard was undoubtedly in a very critical sitution. I do not know that it is too much to say that he was in personal danger, and for a time, at any rate, it seemed doubtful which way things would go; all his resources were needed to retain his position and some such questions as this arises: Could he in that crisis have given more protection than he did to the property of Roman Catholic missions? In deference to the view of the French Government, we may be willing to make an offer when they put forward the claim that Captain Lugard might have done more to avert the damage that was done; but it would not be fair to Captain Lugard, or to the Company that employed him, to say that in a crisis like that he might have done things which he did not do, or that he did things which he ought not to have done, unless you have far clearer evidence than we possess. The sum in question is nothing like as large a proportion as the half of this Vote, and I think the Committee will admit that it would not be fair to delay the settlement with the East Africa Company, or to hold them responsible. I should like to relieve the apprehension of the hon. Member for Northampton by saying that, no doubt there is a considerable chief of the name Mbarak bin Rashid, but it is not true that at the present time he is in revolt, or that we are preparing to have any difficulty with him, or that we expect them to occur.

said, the Debate had taken such a much wider scope than the mere question of the Vote to the Company, that he hoped he would not be out of touch with the Committee if he confined himself to that question. He was fully aware of the jealous caution—the justifiable caution—with which that House, or the Committee of it, regarded a Member who took part in a Debate involving important public issues, and who at the same time might be considered to have personal interests in the matter, whether they were his own or whether they belonged to a body of individuals whom he represented. It had not been a congenial task on former occasions to find himself in this position, knowing as he had done the motives which had animated this Company from its inception, knowing the high character and the patriotism of the men who started it—many of them men who had rendered long and distinguished service to their Queen, and country; knowing the loyalty to those motives with which they had carried it on, and the patience and self-sacrifice, and the untiring energy with which they had worked through a long course of misrepresentation and undeserved difficulties; knowing and feeling these things deeply—it had not been an agreeable position to find himself fettered in the full expression of defence and vindication of the Company by the considerations to which he had alluded. But now that a settlement—of sorts—had been arrived at, he hoped that the Committee would generously discharge him of these suspicions; and as he happened to occupy a position of responsibility to the Company, he would humbly beg hon. Members not to allow any deficiencies on his part to discount the merits of the case he desired to lay before them. That case was not confined to a justification of the Vote under notice, it was a protest against the whole spirit in which the Company had been treated by the Government. He might say at once that the Company were far from satisfied with the compensation now being granted. He would deal with that part of the subject later, and would turn at once to certain specific points on which the Company had been attacked in this Debate, and a few days ago in another place. On the whole he had no reason to complain of the tone and matter of the speech delivered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on that occasion. But if anyone could read the Company's protracted correspondence and negotiations with the Foreign Office they would see at once a great contrast between the Under Secretary's speech and the tone of that correspondence The latter was pervaded with a spirit of carping, belittling suspicion and jealousy which had, throughout the whole career of this East African enterprise, dogged every step of their dealings with the Foreign Office. And they especially complained of a speech recently made by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords on the 23rd of May, and he would keep that speech in view in dealing with the points raised in this Debate, because it was a fair embodiment of the prejudices which had been manufactured and fostered to the end, against the proceedings of the Company—prejudices of which they bitterly complained as unjust and uncalled for, and of which it was his bounden duty to endeavour to disabuse the minds of hon. Members and of the people whom they represented. On the subject of the French claims for the Catholics in Uganda, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had tried to make something, he had been so fully answered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that it was unnecessary for him (the speaker) to do more than say, on behalf of the Company, that no charges had ever been brought against them, no representations ever had been made to them by the Government on this score. If any inquiry had been held it had been done behind their (the Company's) back; and the Company was ready and willing at any moment to meet any vestige of a charge that could be brought. The Chancellor of the Exchequer blamed the Company for going into Uganda, and the hon. Member for Northampton abused them because they had not sufficient capital to stay there. On the first point, too, the Prime Minister had said of his Government:—

"We, on our part, would have been satisfied to proceed much more slowly and much more economically, if we had not been pushed into the competition of the race. And therefore we have been forced into Central Africa."

But could any words describe with greater force or fidelity the case not of the Government but of the Company? They were formed for limited and definite objects, with a capital as he had said commensurate with the scope of their original undertaking. They certainly should have been better "satisfied to proceed much more slowly," but the energies and capital of the Company were "pushed into the competition of the race" in order to save East Africa for England. This extension of operations arose not out of land hunger or any avaricious motives, but through the force of political exigencies, which the Company had recognised, patriotically, but to their cost. The Company under its original Concession and Charter were required to administer a coastline of only 150 miles, and the limited sphere of British influence as then defined by International Agreement. It was the aggressive hostility, promoted by commercial rivalry, of the neighbouring German company (then established to the north as well as the south of the British sphere) in striving to hem in the British Company and shut England out from gaining access to Uganda and the sources of the Nile, that forced the Company, prematurely, perhaps, but successfully, to establish Great Britain's claims to those regions, and to bring about a readjustment of the respective spheres of British and German influence, thus freeing Her Majesty's Government for all time from the jealous rivalry of a great Power—in other respects, he was glad to say, a great friendly Power—a rivalry which powerfully opposed itself to English claims in the earlier years of the Company's existence. Now, on the question of the Company's capital, the hon. Member for Northampton had sneered at its insufficiency, and the Prime Minister animadverted on the same subject when the latter, at least, must have known that it was the opposition and difficulties placed in their way by the Government, and specifically the fear and reluctance of the Government to declare their intentions with regard to Uganda and the railway that had made it useless for the Company to ask for more capital. Had Her Majesty's Government merely guaranteed the interest on a railway to be constructed from Mombasa to Lake Victoria—a sum not exceeding £60,000 per annum—had they taken this step which they have now announced, at an earlier date, the capital would have been provided by the Company as necessary to hold and administer Uganda and the vast territory acquired by the Company, an arrangement that would certainly have effected a considerable saving to Her Majesty's; Treasury. He must certainly congratulate the Government on making a very sharp bargain with the Company when they settled the price before announcing their intention to construct the railway. The property they bought would at Twelve o'clock to-night be worth double what it was when the Company accepted their offer. It was very clever; but was it the way in which an English Government should deal with a great national English enterprise? The Company had sufficient capital for the original scope of their enterprise: it was the larger area they wore compelled to embrace, and compelled by public opinion and by national interests and national honour, which made their capital insufficient. Side by side with the British East Africa Company the German Company received, by way of subsidy, a guarantee on a loan of £500,000, and a grant of £30,000 a year, and the Italian Government had paid all the expenses of their enterprise. The British East Africa Company received nothing. They did not ask for anything. And yet the Company stood in the place of the British Government. Upon them depended the guardianship not of their own interests but of the whole national interests of England in the partition of that important portion of Africa. It was not the case of a company extending an existing sphere and taking in large gold-bearing territories. The Company knew it was a poor country; they knew it was an isolated position; the knew it was their mission to place the wedge of British power in that position, trusting that the British Government would take their part in driving it in so as to become an effective location where it was most necessary, both with regard to the North and South of Africa. Did the Government take their part? Did they assist the Company in the least? No, they must have known the national exigencies of the position, they must have known the Company were doing their work, but they hampered the Company in a hundred ways, and they now were loth to acknowledge who it was that did that work of which they were now reaping the fruits. The noble Lord said—speaking, forsooth! for the Government—that it was "the enthusiasm of the nations for dividing that continent that put us—" the Government—"so far." To whom did the pronoun apply? To the Government? No; to the Company who had been made the corpus vile of this experiment in the "enthusiasm of nations," and it was the English Government and the English nation who had reaped the benefits of it. He was not complaining of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in acquiring the direct administration of British East Africa. On the assumption of the British Protectorate over Zanzibar in 1890 Her Majesty's Consul General virtually assumed the powers of the Sultan, and the position of the Company thereupon so changed as to render the existence of dual control unnecessary and calculated to create friction between Her Majesty's representative and the Company's administrator in East Africa. What the Company did resent was the unmerited depreciation of the Company's services which distinguished the language and attitude of Ministers and officials in effecting a settlement so willingly facilitated by the directors. The Company had been charged with being solely a commercial Company, animated by commercial, mercenary, and personal motives, rather than a company which had been guided throughout its career by political, humanitarian, and patriotic objects. Now there was in the office of the Company a letter from Lord Kimberley, dated the 14th of November last, in which there occurred the following passage:—

"There is a marked difference between the work of other chartered companies in Africa, in which the commercial element is a prominent feature, and that of the East Africa Company, in which that element has hitherto scarcely existed."

Who was the responsible Foreign Minister of this country, when in spite of that letter from the nominal occupant of that office, the noble Lord at the head of the Government sneered at the Company as a—

"commercial Company which had expressed its willingness to take its dividends in philanthropy, but when it came to discuss the question of evacuation, was not satisfied with that remuneration."

His Lordship must have known that the Company had received no dividends, that they were asking for none, and that on the present arrange, ment they were losing more than half of their capital, and had definitively agreed three months ago to that arrangement. They had been accused by the noble Lord at the head of the Government of delay. He had something to say on this question of delay. The noble Lord stated that he felt purged of any responsibility for the long and, to the Company costly delay, of coining to an arrangement, and by implication that some of that responsibility attached to the Company. But the noble Lord knew that for the last three years they had been willing to retire ever since July 30, 1892, when they submitted a proposal to Lord Salisbury, which he thought of sufficient importance to submit to Sir Gerald Portal in Africa and to ask for a telegraphic reply. What that reply was had never been made known, for shortly after the Seals of Office were transferred to the present Prime Minister. Again, a year later, in May, 1893, they approached the Foreign Office with a committee of shareholders. The Foreign Office said that they must make a definite offer and they made the offer to take 10s. 6d. in the £ of their expenditure up to that date. They were encouraged to believe that that offer would be accepted. But there followed a whole year of fruitless and unnecessary delay, at the end of which the shareholders, having borne the great cost of maintaining the country for a year after that offer was made, had no alternative but to withdraw it. There was no assurance of further compensation to meet the cost they were being put to. Then the Government, having declared its Protectorate over Uganda, made an offer—an offer so indefinite in its terms and so at variance with their former expressed intentions that it took another three months of weary negotiation before they found out what it really was. And now, after depriving the Company of the use of the money which they would have had for two years, had it been paid in 1893, and after putting them to the enormous extra expense of maintaining the country for those two years, the Government made an offer which was less than their former offer by reason of the great cost of those two years. Insufficient as the directors deemed the offer, they accepted it last March. It was now the middle of June, and no steps had been taken till now. He did not think, therefore, that it was competent for the Government or any of their critics to accuse the Company of delay. But there was the more serious innuendo of the Prime Minister—namely, that the "Company were being paid money without having their accounts inquired into." They had asked, they had pleaded, they had protested, that their accounts should be inquired into, fully and drastically. They asked that they should be inquired into by a Committee to be appointed by the Foreign Office. That request was refused. They asked that they should be inquired into by arbitration. That was the method they wanted; because it would have been the fairest, the most honest, and the most natural way of settling this difficulty. And arbitration was refused point blank. What did this last refusal mean? What did the refusal of arbitration mean in any case, be it of commercial disputes, or labour disputes, or or legal disputes? Did it not mean that the party that refused arbitration was afraid of arbitration and desirous of doing less than justice to the party that claimed it? After these requests and refusals, he said it did not lie in the mouth of the Prime Minister or of any Member of the Government to suggest that they were being paid money without any investigation of their accounts. But the suggestion had been made, and he proposed to answer it by giving the Committee a clear statement of what those accounts were. The Company had spent altogether—i.e., it had put into the property which the British Government was taking over bodily, a sum of £612,281. He would deduct from this the sum, a very inadequate one, paid to the Company by the Government for the last quarter of a year ending March 31, 1893, during which the Company continued to occupy Uganda at their request, viz., £4,394, plus the sum for the stores there which they took over—after the Company had carried them up—viz., £12,175, making together £16,000. Deducting this £16,000 from the £612,000, there was left the sum of £596,000. Deducting further from this the £58,000 which they had paid in rent to the Sultan and had collected from the Customs, a sum of £538,000 was left, which the Company had put into the property now to be taken over. He desired to fix the attention of the House on this figure of £538,000, because the Company were getting in return for it £250,000. Now, with regard to this £250,000, only £50,000 came before the House, or would be contributed by the British Government. £200,000 was to be paid by the Sultan of Zanzibar. The distinction between the Sultan of Zanzibar and the British Government was merely a nominal one, but it was perhaps important to keep to it in arguing the case, because the £200,000 paid by the Sultan of Zanzibar did not come out of the pocket of the British taxpayer. It was a sum which he received from the German Government, which was formerly locked up, but which nearly a year ago came into the hands of the Foreign Office by the passing of the Zanzibar Indemnity Bill through this House, and was there ready for the Government to use in dealing with the Company, which was ready at that time, and long before, to deal with them. He observed that the Prime Minister stated in another place that this fund was only freed a few weeks before the completion of the present arrangement. He could not reconcile that statement with the fact that the Zanzibar Indemnity Bill passed through this House on July 16, 1894. Now, what did the Sultan of Zanzibar, this imaginary party to the deal, get in return for his £200,000? He got the value of £247,000 spent by the company,£161,500 assets, and £85,500 cost of administration paid for eight years, from every penny of which he had been relieved. Coining to the £50,000 which was the subject of this Vote, which had to be paid by the taxpayer, he asked, what did the Government get for that? They got the value, in hard cash spent, and putting aside all other things, of £269,000.

How?

The value of that sum of money which we have spent.

Thrown away!

said, as for the money having been thrown away, let them consider what this country had got for it. When the Company began operations it was limited to a narrow strip of coastline of 150 miles. As the result of these operations, this country, instead of being restricted within the insignificant sphere reserved to her under the international delimitation of Africa in 1886, now possessed the Protectorate of Zanzibar, 400 miles of coastline, with many valuable harbours, and the vast territory extending back to the Lake District and the Nile basin. But there were other considerations than the expenditure of the £269,000. The free investment by the shareholders in what was held out to them from the very first as a national enterprise, in what had been conducted as a national enterprise, and in what the nation, and not the shareholders, would reap the benefit of—the patriotic spirit which called forth these large contributions of money, and which was the motive which drew into this enterprise the greater part of its capital was not one that should be sneered and carped at. Then there was the loss of more than half of the Company's capital and the loss of interest for eight years on the capital called up. He might even mention the loss of life; for, although in one sense that could never be compensated for, a more generous treatment at the hands of the Government might have enabled them to review some of those sad cases in the direction of relief to relatives who were dependent on those lives. Man after man, from the gallant young Fenwick de Winton and that distinguished officer Captain Mackay, down to humbler but not less faithful employés of the Company, had in that wild country, alone and far from home and friends, freely risked and yielded up their lives, as Englishmen had in all ages, in order that English Empire might be built up upon them. And lastly, there was the watchful, tedious untiring devotion of a body of men in the court of the Company, many of them, as he had said, old servants of their country, tried and trusted in high offices, who had freely given years of their time and labour, unpaid, to the great responsibilities of this enterprise. All these, and many other considerations, were naturally put aside when the Government began by offering£50,000 for the £269,000 the Company had spent. They had advised the shareholders to accept that settlement, and the shareholders had followed the advice. None the less, they left it with confidence to public opinion to say what sort of a settlement it was, and how far it would conduce to the honour and prestige of the Government that had made it. For their part, although they were deeply concerned for the grievous loss their shareholders had been made to suffer, they had no reason, in the moment of resigning their long and arduous task, to be otherwise than proud of what they had done. They had opened the centre of that unexplored and mysterious continent, the last that was left, to the civilising enterprise and the humanising influences of England. They had opened those regions to the productions of our working-classes at home, and ultimately as it would prove to the colonisation of our surplus population. They had secured to England the key of that broad highway of trade and commerce, aye, and of mercy and justice and freedom to the unfortunate native tribes, which was bound sooner or later to traverse Africa from Capetown to Alexandria. They had made this path the work of Englishmen; they had made it possible for it to be, if only the old spirit animated their successors, the possession of England. They had struck by far the most effective blow that had ever been dealt at a frightful human abuse—namely, the traffic in human life, which was caused by the system of porterage and which was insufficiently described as slavery, and of which the districts which they had opened up to the light of day and the ultimate blessings of civilisation formed the very nerve-centre. They had made possible the effective accomplishment of a great cause, for which England had made historic sacrifices in money and in noble lives. And although it might be many years before the complete fulfilment of these things should have come to pass, no one could say that the light of hope had not already dawned upon the darkest part of Africa, and in future years it would be remembered that those who carried it there were not the Government who sat upon the Benches opposite, but the British East Africa Company who had sacrificed their own interests to a great public and national necessity.

thought it right to say on behalf of the Government that they recognised the high motives by which the hon. Member who had just sat down and his colleagues had been inspired in the work in which they had engaged. He should be very sorry if those who had shared in that work should imagine that their motives had been misunderstood or not appreciated by the country. He hoped that now the Committee would come to a decision upon the question before them. [Cries of "No."]

observed, that as yet only two of the Members who were opposed to the Vote had been able to express their views.

said, that the reason why he hoped that a decision would be come to without further delay was that it was very desirable that progress should be made with the second Order on the Paper, the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Bill, which must be passed into law by the last day of this month or the first day of July.

said, he had been waiting all the evening for the purpose of placing certain views upon this question before the Committee, and unless the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give another evening he should not be induced at the present moment to accede to his appeal. He might be permitted to draw attention to another line of communication to the districts in question, and he did so because the principal objection raised to the construction of the proposed railway from Uganda to the coast was on the score of expense. It had been a matter of surprise to him that in all these Debates no attention appeared to have been drawn to the great chain of lakes which would constitute certainly the easiest line of communication between these districts and the coast. Anyone familiar with the map would be aware that from the mouths of the Zambesi to Uganda, with one or two gaps, there was a great waterway of over 1,200 miles, which not only formed the easiest method of communication with Central Africa, but ran through the most productive and densely populated portions of the Continent. He should like hon. Members to consider whether it would not be simpler and more profitable to assist in the development of the lake route. The only defects in the chain, of communication were two—first, a distance of about 200 miles between Uganda and the north end of Lake Tanganyika; and, secondly, at the south end of the lake, about another 200 miles, to Lake Nyassa. That was about 400 miles which would, no doubt, have to be covered by railway or some other means of land transport. Then coming to Lake Nyassa, you had, with the exception of the Murchison Cataracts on the Shiré River, open communication down to the sea. The reason why he advanced this proposition was because there were parties who, if the Government would lend their aid to the purpose, were willing and able to carry the opening of the great lakes into effect, and we would thus, at much less cost and at a much earlier period, have free communication with the richest portions of Central Africa, which would send all their commerce down by the channel indicated to the coast. He believed that so far from throwing away £3,000,000 of money, as might be the case in the construction of a railway through a difficult country, thinly populated, and not having any very great natural wealth, they would be able to obtain from the great reservoir in the districts he had alluded to many sources of revenue which would only require a fair amount of capital and no very long time to develop. He was anxious not to do anything which would prevent the Vote being taken that night; but there were one or two matters to which he should have liked to refer. On the subject of slave labour in these districts, for instance, the hon. Member for Northampton had spoken as if all the labour, even that of the Zanzibarees in connection with the caravans, was slave labour. At the time the hon. Member made this assertion, he ventured to interject a remark, by way of correction, and the hon. Gentleman retorted by asking him if he had been in those districts himself and had seen what went on there. He admitted that he had not, but he would make this remark: If one's knowledge of things in this life was to be limited to everything one had seen and nothing else, he ventured to think one would be as narrow-minded on all subjects as the hon. Member for Northampton was on some. It did not need that they should have travelled in these districts if they had that modicum of education which enabled them to read the books of authors who had travelled in the countries of which they wrote. In regard to the particular country under discussion they had what had been written of it from his fulness of knowledge by the late Commander Cameron, and they had also what had been recorded of it by the late Captain Stairs in the book recently published by Dr. Moloney. He would undertake to say that in every one of these authorities there would be found the most ample corroboration of the proposition he advanced, that, in the first place, the labour in these districts was not forced or slave labour; and, in the second place, that there were tribes in the central districts containing skilled workmen, who were also keen traders, and who did an immense amount of more or less skilled work in the production of the wealth of their country. In proof of the contention that the labour of the Zanzibarees was not forced labour, the hon. Member quoted a passage from Dr. Moloney's book, in which it was stated that a few days after the Zanzibaree porters had gone back to Zanzibar, having endured for many months the utmost hardship and privations incident to a long journey which they had undertaken across the country, they again enlisted themselves for another journey right across the Central district. There was just one other matter to which he should like to refer for a moment. The Leader of the House had that evening, as well as on a former occasion, insisted upon the exceedingly unhealthy character of the district for Europeans, but on page 93 of the report of the Survey, in reference to this very district of Uganda, testimony was borne to its healthfulness. It was stated that in some parts the climate was very similar to the mild European climate such as that experienced in the South of England, and was remarkably free from malarial influences. It was only fair, he considered, that this should be stated. He should have liked to have touched upon other points, but he did not wish to interfere with the Vote being taken that night.

I am bound to say that, after the very satisfactory explanation of the Government to-night, I see no reason why we should not come to a vote on the proposals they have made. I do not intend—and, indeed, the time at my disposal would make it impossible—to traverse the smaller controversial points that have been raised. The relation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues is one which, no doubt, is of great interest; but it is of less interest, after all, than the great national cause which is at stake, on which the Government have at last come to a decision, and on which, in my opinion, they have decided as patriotism should recommend. Had I had more time at my disposal I should have pressed on the Under Secretary the extreme inconvenience of one part of the plan of the Government—that, namely, of leaving the strip of ten miles of territory under all the inconveniences which attach the extra-territorial system. It is the cause of endless inconvenience in Egypt, and in every country where it has been tried. Germany, suffering under the system, have brought out the rights by which that system has been kept up; and I would urge on the Government if possible to follow in this respect the German example. With this brief indication of my opinions on the subject, I will only conclude by pointing out to the House that the Government are now absolutely pledged to the policy of the railroad; that they must, I presume, in the course of the present year, bring in a Vote, if it be only a nominal Vote, for the railroad; that it would be on that Vote that further discussion would properly take place; and that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we feel that, as the Government have gone so far in the direction we have always pressed on them, it would be ungrateful on our part if we did not support them to carry through, as far as is possible at this stage of our proceedings, the policy they have announced to-night.

I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."

, who remained seated and with his hat on, asked whether shareholders and directors of the East Africa Company would be allowed to vote on the Division.

That is not a question of Order.

, who also remained seated and covered: The last time this question came before the House, the position of the directors and shareholders was considered, and it was ruled, I think, by the Speaker that they had no right to vote.

This is not a question of Order. It is a question for the House to decide. If, after the Division is over, the House thinks it proper to order any votes to be struck off, that is another matter.

appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to press his objection, as the Bill had the day before been approved by the Institute of Commanding Officers.

said, he would have supported the Bill had it not been supported by the hon. Member for Sheffield. As it was, he must object. Second Reading deferred.

, in answer to Mr. Speaker, said, that the Motion he wished to make was that the Committee be now taken for the purpose of passing the Bill through Committee pro formaâ embodying the concerted Amendments therein, and then reprinting the Bill.

said: This is an entirely formal proceeding, and it does not advance the Bill one jot. It is not, therefore, open to objection. It is entirely for the convenience of the House, and it is necessary that the Bill pass through Committee pro formaâ in order that the Bill may be reprinted with the Amendments. It has been held on a former occasion that such a matter is not open to objection.

in the Chair,

I beg to move, Sir, that you do report progress.

appealed to the hon. Member not to press his Motion. The Scotch Conservative and Unionist Members had agreed with his hon. Friend that this was not a contentious measure.

The question is that I do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

, On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether, the Speaker having ruled—

Order, order! I am quite clear upon the point. Objection having been taken in the manner it has been, it is the duty of the Chairman to leave the Chair. The House having resumed,