Skip to main content

British East Africa Protectorate

Volume 91: debated on Tuesday 19 March 1901

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

said the British East African Protectorate had a finance of the strangest description. It was, he believed, the only subject on the Civil Service Estimates in regard to which there was always a Supplementary Estimate, and that Supplementary Estimate generally largely exceeded in amount the original Estimate for the year. That made this Protectorate unique in its finance. That it was no exaggeration to say there was always a Supplementary Estimate was shown by the fact that there were two Estimates each year in 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, and also this year. Financial purists who objected to Supplementary Estimates would find this case certainly by far the strongest that existed in the Estimates, and doubtless notice would be taken of it. Different reasons were given in different years by the Foreign Office for the Supplementary Estimate. Sometimes the Committee were frankly told that it was in consequence of deficiency on revenue, and at other times, as on the present occasion, that it was due to wars. But each year when the Appropriation accounts appeared there was always a muddle of the finances of the protectorate—wars, the ordinary pay and upkeep of the troops in time of peace, police, justice, charges which ought really to appear in the Uganda Railway Vote, telegraph charges—all were muddled together in the most inextricable fashion, and he was afraid that those accounts had hardly justified in past years the particular explanations which had been given of the Supplementary Estimates. In 1900 there was a very large Supplementary Estimate, mostly accounted for by wars, and the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs promised that there would be a very great reduction in the Estimates this year. As the Committee could see, however, by the large Supplementary Vote now before them, and the ordinary Vote in the Estimates, the promise had not been kept. The explanation was that the Foreign Office had been carrying on officially and publicly two wars, and, ho believed, a third war had, as a matter of fact, been raging, but of that the Committee had no information. The Appropriation Accounts showing the allocation in past years of the two Votes—the Supplementary and the ordinary—for this protectorate brought together a most curious collection of items, including compensation to slave-owners. He mentioned that in case the Under Secretary of State could give the Committee any information in regard to it. This protectorate presented the very worst specimen of either colonial or protectorate finance appearing in the Accounts. Even Uganda, which had had a curious financial history, had not involved this constant supremacy of the Supplementary over the ordinary Estimate. The wars to which the excesses were attributed were conducted by an Office, the real duty of which was not to carry on wars, but to conduct the diplomatic and consular business of the country. The bettor one thought of the Foreign Office, the more fit one thought it was for its task, the less one wished that it should have this sort of business on its hands. The foreign affairs of this country were sufficiently complicated, and the demands on the attention of the Foreign Office in regard to China and other parts of the world were quite enough, without that Office being called upon either to administer protectorates or to engage armies and carry on wars. There was nothing in which this country differed more from every other country than in the fact that here we had Colonial Office armies. Foreign Office armies, the Indian Army-employed in Africa, and a medley of troops and war expenditure charged on the Civil Service Estimates—all entirely outside the control of the War Office, both as regards the command and the composition of the forces. The Foreign Office could not provide generals, but had to hire its troops, to some extent, and its officers, very largely, from the War Office and the India Office to carry on these wars, with the result that there were these Supplementary Estimates year after year. The concealment, both of the finance and of the wars, was very considerable. The country was not allowed the ordinary sources of information. Those who served the Foreign Office on that coast were not permitted to make any statement as to what was passing, and very little indeed was known in this country as to what really did occur. In the past the country had gradually become aware of much that passed on that coast; in the course of time people heard the details of the wars, and of the troubles which led to those wars, from two sources—the Primitive Methodist missionaries and the Church of England missionaries in East Africa. He desired to ask the Under Secretary of State whether he was able to report to the House any change in the views of the Government as to the future of this strip of territory? Might the country look to the Foreign Office contemplating the possibility of divesting themselves of the control and the government of this laud? The original reasons given for the Foreign Office holding such places at all was that complications might arise with other countries. But there was much less risk nowadays of complications with foreign countries on the British East African coast than in almost any other part of the world in which this country was interested. Sir Arthur Hardinge, having received the promotion he deserved, had been replaced by another officer in chief command. Sir Arthur Hardinge held very peculiar views, which he frankly stated both publicly and privately. The Committee desired to know, with regard to the future of this territory, what chance there was that the promises by which the Government were supposed to be bound, under the advice of Sir Arthur Hardinge. would be gradually got rid of. In British East Africa we were supposed to be obliged to tolerate an exceptional condition of affairs, in order to avoid risings and petty wars. We had recognised the institution of slavery to a degree in which we had never recognised it in any other part of the world, and had been told this was necessary to avoid troubles with Arab chiefs. But risings had not been avoided, year by year the Committee were asked to vote largo sums of money—£200,000, £300,000, and sometimes £400,000—for these wretched little wars with the very Arab chiefs who were supposed to be conciliated by the promises which had been made. He had always denied that any promise had been made which was different from the ordinary pledges which had been given over and over again, and which were not supposed to commit us to any recognition of slavery. The promise which was made when we took over the government, not by anyone sent out from home, but by a junior officer in the Navy who became Prime Minister to the Sultan of Zanzibar, was that for the future we would observe the laws and customs of the country. Such promises had been made hundreds of times in India, but had never been supposed to commit us to a recognition—certainly not for a prolonged period—of the status of slavery. The Secretary of State, who was supposed to have authorised the promise, had stated publicly that he had never intended such a promise to be made, or one in any way committing us as to the future. The facts that had been revealed from time to time as to the slavery in the protectorate were such that he asked whether the time had not now come when the Government could give some pledge as to the future. If we were not able to avoid these worrying little wars, involving the payment of such large sums of money, at all events we should abolish the legal status of slavery in British East Africa as we had abolished it in every other part of the Empire. In order to get a statement from the Under Secretary of State he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Class 5, Vote 2, be reduced by £1,000, in respect of British East Africa."—( Sir Charles Dilke.)

, who was very imperfectly heard in the gallery, was understood to express the opinion that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was over-suspicious with regard to the Supplementary Estimate under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that various excuses were put forward year after year, and he apparently had no very great confidence that the reasons put forward for the extra expenditure altogether corresponded to the facts.

Personally, I am not conscious of any incompleteness. The right hon. Gentleman had a very great experience of public affairs, and the noble Lord confessed that his suspicious attitude made him somewhat uncomfortable as to how affairs were arranged in the older days. On the present occasion he came before the Committee quite frankly, without any arrière pensee whatever, and asked that they should find the money necessary for the particular war we had undertaken in East Africa. Before going into the particulars of that expedition, however, he would refer briefly to the general matters about which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. Those matters were, if he might say so, entirely irrelevant to the Vote before the Committee, because money was taken only for the particular subject referred to. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the finance of the protectorate was always in the greatest confusion; that the expedients adopted by the Foreign Office were almost chaotic in their character; and that troops were borrowed from anywhere to carry on these wars. It was perfectly true that one part of the British Empire went to another part to obtain assistance, but that was one of the great advantages of belonging to a great organisation like the British Empire—that one part could help another. But it was not at all the fact that the Foreign Office authorities had nothing to rely upon themselves. There were a series of bodies of troops, some in Central Africa, some in Uganda, and some in British East Africa, and before long there would be some in Somali-land also. The right hon. Gentleman stated that no information was given to the House of Commons as to what occurred in this protectorate. The reason so little was heard of these small expeditions was that in the midst of all the great events of the British Empire they were really of only slight public interest. What was it that gave the House and the country information as to the war in South Africa? It was the presence of special correspondents on the spot. Would anybody suggest that any of our great newspapers would be well-advised in sending special correspondents to watch these punitive expeditions? Of course they would not, and consequently that great source of information was not available. The same amount of secrecy as was undoubtedly necessary in foreign affairs was not requisite in regard to these expeditions, and the right hon. Gentleman had only to place questions on the Paper; he would find no reluctance on the part of the Foreign Office to reply fully. The only reason Papers had not been laid on the Table concerning affairs in East Africa was that the information was not yet complete, and, considering the small amount of matter in hand, it was thought to be wiser to wait until full and complete despatches had been received. If, however, the Committee was very anxious about the matter, there probably would be no unwillingness to lay on the Table the incomplete papers. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of slavery, but that had nothing to do with this Vote, and the war which had been undertaken had nothing whatever to do with slavery. Slavery was a very important question; it had been debated over and over again in the House, the position of the Government had been several times stated, and he (the noble Lord) would be prepared to deal with the question on the proper occasion. The particular war in British East Africa to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was in Jubaland, whereas the other had to do with Somali-land, and it was for these two wars that the Committee were asked to provide this money. The war in Jubaland had nothing to do with slavery, but, as so often happened, with a case of murder. The British Agent, Mr. Jenner, a most valuable public servant, had great sympathy with the people among whom ho moved. He unfortunately had too much confidence in his influence over the people, and consequently trusted them in a way which was now a cause of regret. It appeared that he had some difference with a chief who was accused of complicity in a crime which had been committed a little while previously, and for which a certain amount of punishment had been imposed by Mr. Jenner. In consequence, this chief conceived a great hatred for Mr. Jenner, and, in concert with another chief, waited for a favourable opportunity for revenge. At the end of November, Mr. Jenner, with only a small escort, went up country for surveying purposes; lie was followed and murdered. When a British officer in the execution of his duty was murdered, the first duty of the Government was to sec that that murder was promptly avenged, and hence this expedition. The total force, when it moved off. numbered about 1.500 men. These troops took a little time to get together, as some had to be obtained from India, and then they bad to be properly rationed, and everything else made ready. They marched some distance up the valley of the Juba, and then fifty-seven miles in a north-westerly direction, when they were suddenly attacked by Ogadens. and. as small expeditions go, a really sanguinary battle ensued. He was sorry to say that amongst those who were killed on the British side were Colonel Maitland and another officer. The difficulties of the country were very great. They could hear the enemy talking on each side of them, so close did they get to them without being seen. The flying column behaved admirably under such circumstances. They had not yet received the written reports from the officers in command in regard to what actually happened, and he anxiously awaited those reports, which would immediately be laid on the Table. With regard to the future, certain precautions were going to be taken, and if all went well there ought to be no more fighting. Of course it was impossible to make expeditions without paying for them, and the long and short of this Vote was that the Committee were now asked to vote the money for that purpose. It was an absolutely unexpected expedition which was forced upon the Government, and no amount of businesslike capacity on the part of the Foreign Office or on the part of the Colonial Office could have led them to foresee that Mr. Jenner would be murdered in November. Consequently, no amount of foresight could have avoided the expedition.

I wish to congratulate the noble Lord upon the very accurate knowledge which he appears to possess upon this subject. I agree with him to this extent—that a murder was committed of a British officer, and that entailed a punitive expedition, and that has been successful; but. unfortunately, it has entailed considerable loss on our side and on the other side. I do not think that the noble Lord representing the Foreign Office was entirely justified in putting aside the very pertinent remarks made by my right hon. friend. Though this Estimate may have been necessary, what we complain of is that, with the exception of the speech just made by the noble Lord, we have had no explanation of the circumstances which rendered this expenditure necessary. With these large amounts perpetually occurring the Government give us cause to complain; that this country is put to large expense in regard to these protectorates, and we have no proper opportunity of controlling this expenditure. To that point the noble Lord made no reply at all. This is not only the case in regard to warlike operations, but also in regard to other matters. It is not in order now to discuss that unfortunate Uganda railway, but whether it is in regard to war or to railways the Government show the same un business like qualities which have followed their operations in British East Africa. I agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the time has come when such questions as this should come under the control of the Colonial Office, and should not remain in the hands of the Foreign Office. It is clear that in the earlier stages of these spheres of influence and protectorates when they have to be delimitated they should be in the hands of the Foreign Office, but when there is no question of delimitation they should be under the control of the Colonial Office. I am not pressing the noble Lord to hand this over to the Colonial Office, because we had information given to us in regard to that Office last night which did not commend itself to my views at all. I think it must he acknowledged that the natural place for a colony is to be under the Colonial Office, and not the Foreign Office. The noble Lord declined to discuss a qusstion which I think is pertinent and of great importance, and that is the question in regard to the legal status of slavery in East Africa, which still remains.

As this money is only taken for a military expedition, a discussion of the legal status of slavery will not be in order.

All I will say upon that point is that I hope the noble Lord will give this matter his best attention, and not be too much bound by the action of his predecessor. As regards this Supplementary Vote I shall not oppose it, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to look into the finances of British East Africa and see that these perpetual Votes are not so constantly recurring under his auspices.

said that if the noble Lord would turn to the last report of the Comptroller and Auditor General he would find that the accounts in previous years for this particular Vote had not been sent in with full details at all. A considerable number of vouchers had been lost, and the figures were merely reminiscent of what the facts might have been. He thought the whole question of the British Protectorate of East Africa could not be considered merely in the light of what it had cost in the present year. He proposed to recall to the mind of the Committee what were the hopes with which the Government went into British East Africa and how year after year those hopes had been falsified. They took over the territory in 1895, and the representative of the Foreign Office in this House at that time told the Committee that the estimated cost would be £30,000 a year. The Colonial Secretary also spoke at that time, and described this protectorate as a vast and fertile territory where we should ultimately establish the Pax Britannica, which would enable the people to live quietly together and engage in agricultural and other pursuits. he hoped this Committee before it sanctioned this Estimate would realise how far those hopes of successful agricultural pursuits and the establishment of the Pax Britannica had been justified by the course of events. In 189C the original Estimate was £30,000, but the Supplementary Estimate for that year amounted to £20,975; in 1897 the original Estimate exceeded the former original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate put together, for it amounted to £65,000, and this was followed by a Supplementary Estimate of £36,700. In the year 1898 the amount asked for was £75,000, and this was followed by yet another Supplementary Estimate of £35,000. In the year 1899 £90,000 was asked for, and this was followed by a Supplementary Estimate of £54,000. In the year 1900 the original Estimate was' £99,000, to which was added a smaller Supplementary Estimate, this time of £11,000. In 1901 the original Estimate was £87,000, but the Supplementary Estimate which they were now discussing amounted to £140,000. Therefore, this country, which was to cost £30,000 a year, was costing £227,000 for this year alone, and every single year since England first took it over the original estimated cost had been enormously exceeded, and never less than doubled. In return for this expenditure the trade they got was nothing approaching the vast amount of money which had been expended in this protectorate. Every penny of these Supplementary Estimates had been voted not in the peaceful development of the country; not to establish the Pax Britannica, but in carrying war into the homes of the natives. Were they wise in continuing a policy which had falsified every one of their hopes and belied all their calculations, and which had shown every official prophecy on the subject to have been wrong?. Mr. Jenner had been killed, and it was the duty of the British Government to take such measures as wore necessary to secure the safety of the British Residents there in the future. But the point to be considered was, in his opinion, whether they were wise in sending British Residents into those territories at all, for the cost of protecting them there far exceeded anything which they might expect to get in return. If his right hon. friend proceeded to a division he should certainly support him in the Lobby. They were having these unexpected and unexplained Estimates hurled at their heads too often. The hon. Member for Poplar had shown that this result was mostly due to placing the control and management of these protectorates in the hands of a Department which was not suited for the work. Was it wise, prudent, or businesslike to take the administration of these territories out of the hands of the Department which possessed trained people to do that particular work? He remembered that the present Secretary of State for War promised the House he would not have a Supplementary Estimate this year for Uganda. He was able to do so with confidence, because, as has since appeared, he knew that the Foreign Office Army was fully occupied elsewhere. Evidently, the Foreign Office meant to show that they could have their little wars as well as the Colonial Office.

said that the part of the Empire which he represented would not be benefited by the expenditure of these enormous sums for this most unfortunate expedition. He did not know of a single case where the loss of one life had cost so much to the country. This officer wont into that country without escort and without any military protection, knowing that his life was in danger, and he undertook this survey and was murdered by this chief who had vindictive feelings towards him. The result was this punitive expedition, and because one British official had lost his life some forty troops had been killed or wounded on our side and some 400 of the enemy had been destroyed. No less than 400 people had been killed in order to avenge the death of one officer, and the sum of £140,000 had been placed upon the taxes of this country. He could not congratulate the Government upon this way of establishing the Pax Britannica. The country had been called the white man's grave, for it was very marshy, and malarial fever there was most deadly. What did England gain by all this? The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had proved that in trade they received nothing like an adequate return for this expenditure. They must arrive at the conclusion that the policy of the Government in this respect had been extravagant and had not been successful, and instead of benefiting British trade it had been a great failure. He thought the claim that they should abandon such a policy was a reasonable and just one. In Ireland they got no benefit whatever, and this policy increased their taxes in a shocking and extravagant manner. The facts placed before the Committee that evening were startling in the highest degree. He had always understood that slavery was not tolerated in any country where the British flag floated, and yet it was admitted that slavery was in full force in this protectorate.

They should have more information about the staff of officials than had been yet given to the Committee. It had been pointed out that the press of this country was not represented in these expeditions, and the public had to rely on officials for information. If all the information was to be judged by that supplied by the officials of this House, there was considerable room for improvement as to the truth of the facts furnished. If the Government were determined to carry on this system of throwing money into this bottomless hole of East Africa, they should give some information as to their policy; and special facilities should be afforded the Press to accompany the expeditions. There was no knowing what horrible cruelties were being perpetrated on both sides. What was the reason why a force of only 1,500 men cost £140,000? That seemed to be a very large sum. How long a period did it cover? The Irish people paid their share of this immense expenditure, but did not benefit in the slightest degree from these punitive expeditions, which indeed only added to their misfortunes. he hoped the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean would press his motion to a division.

I appeal to the Committee to bring this branch of this discussion to a close as soon as possible, as there are other matters of great interest and importance with which the Committee very much desire to deal.

said they were dealing with the first item of this Vote, and he desired to ask, on a point of order, whether, when the first item was disposed of, they would be able to go on to the next.

said he proposed to divide on this motion. The Chairman had ruled that on this occasion they could not deal with the question of the legal status of slavery in this Protectorate, but at the same time it would be in the minds of hon. Members that no pledge had been given by the Government on the subject.

I think that we Irish Members on a question like this, involving so much money—


Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.Doxford, Sir William TheodoreLowe, Francis William
Agg-Gardner, James TynteDurning-Lawrence Sir EdwinLowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Agnew, Sir Andrew NoelFaber, George DenisonLoyd, Archie Kirkman
Allhusen, Augustus H. EdenFergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'rLucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)
Anson, Sir William ReynellFielden, Edward BrocklehurstMacdona, John Cumming
Archdale, Edward MervynFinch, George H.Maconochie, A. W.
Arkwright, John StanhopeFinlay, Sir Robert BannatyneM'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.Fisher, William HayesM'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir EllisFitzmaurice, Lord EdmondMajendie, James A. H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. JohnFitzroy, Hn. Edward AlgernonMaxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.
Austin, Sir JohnFletcher, Sir HenryMilward, Colonel Victor
Bailey, James (Walworth)Flower, ErnestMolesworth, Sir Lewis
Bain, Colonel James RobertGarfit, WilliamMontagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Baird, John George AlexanderGodson, Sir Augustus FrederickMoon, Edward Robert Pacy
Balcarres, LordGordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&NairnMore, Robert Jasper (Shropsh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'rGore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.
Banbury, Frederick GeorgeGorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John EldonMorrell, George Herbert
Bartley, George C. T.Goschen, Hon. George JoachimMorris, Hon. Martin H. F.
Bathurst, Hn. Allen BenjaminGoulding, Edward AlfredMorrison, James Archibald
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (BristolGray, Ernest (West Ham)Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'ndsMurray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)Murray, Col, Wyndham (Bath
Bignold, ArthurGreene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Bigwood, JamesGreville, Hon. RonaldNicol, Donald Ninian
Blundell, Col. HenryGroves, James GrimbleOrr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Bond, EdwardGurdon, Sir W. BramptonPalmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Brassey, AlbertHain, EdwardParker, Gilbert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. JohnHambro, Charles EricParkes, Ebenezer
Brookfield, Colonel MontaguHamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'xPemberton, John S. G.
Bull, William JamesHamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderryPierpoint, Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W.Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.Pilkington, Richard
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.Hardy, Laurence (Kent, AshfdPlatt-Higgins, Frederick
Cautley, Henry StrotherHare, Thomas LeighPretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'thPryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)Haslam, Sir Alfred S.Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)Haslett, Sir James HornerRandles, John S.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)Heath, Arthur Howard (HanleyRankin, Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'rHelder, AugustusReid, James (Greenock)
Chapman, EdwardHogg, LindsayRemnant James Farquharson
Churchill, Winston SpencerHope, J. F. (Sheffield, BrightsideRentoul, James Alexander
Clare, Octavius LeighHoult, JosephRenwick, George
Colston, Charles Edw. H. A.Howard, Cpt. J. (Kent, Faversh.Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cook, Sir Frederick LucasHutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. LawiesRutherford, John
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)Jebb, Sir Richard ClaverhouseSackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cox, Irwin Edw. BainbridgeJeffreys, Arthur FrederickSadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cranborne, ViscountJohnston, William (Belfast)Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.
Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cubitt, Hon. HenryKing, Sir Henry SeymourSimeon, Sir Barrington
Dalkeith, Earl ofLambton, Hon. Frederick W.Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalrymple, Sir CharlesLaurie, Lieut-GeneralSkewes-Cox, Thomas
Davies, Sir Horatio D (ChathamLaw, Andrew BonarSmith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets.S. GeoLawson, John GrantSmith, H. C (North'mb.Tynesd.
Dickson, Charles ScottLee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-Legge, Col. Hon. HeneageSpear, John Ward
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph CockfieldLeigh-Bennett, Henry CurrieStanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Disraeli, Coningsby RalphLeveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 73.)

Stock, James HenryWarde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Stone, Sir BenjaminWebb, Col. William GeorgeWolff, Gustay Wilhelm
Stroyan, JohnWelby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Tauntn)Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Strutt, Hon. Charles HedleyWhiteley, H (Ashton-and-LyneWyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sturt, Hon. Humphry NapierWilliam's, Col. R. (Dorset)Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)Willox, Sir John Archibald
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. MurrayWilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther,
Valentia, ViscountWilson, John (Falkirk)
Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(SheffieldWilson, John (Glasgow)
Walker, Col. William HallWilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.


Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.Field, WilliamO'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Abraham, William (Rhondda)Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)O'Malley, William
Allan, William (Gateshead)Furness, Sir ChristopherO'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. StroudGilhooly, JamesPartington, Oswald
Barry, E. (Cork S.)Goddard, Daniel FordReddy, M.
Boyle, JamesHammond, JohnRedmond, William (Clare)
Brigg, JohnHarmswoth, R. LeicesterRigg, Richard
Broadhurst, HenryHarwood, GeorgeRoberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)Hayden, John PatrickRobson, William Snowdon
Brunner, Sir John TomlinsonHemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.Roche, John
Burke, E. Haviland-Holland, William HenryRoe, Sir Thomas
Burns, JohnJameson, Maj. J. EustaceSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burt, ThomasJones, William (Carnarvonsh.Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Buxton, Sydney CharlesJordan, JeremiahShipman, Dr. John G.
Caldwell, JamesJoyce, MichaelSinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)Kearley, Hudson E.Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Causton, Richard KnightKennedy, Patrick JamesSoares, Ernest J.
Cawley, FrederickKitson, Sir JamesSpencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants
Clancy, John JosephLambert, GeorgeSullivan, Donal
Colville, JohnLangley, BattyTaylor, Theodore Cooke
Condon, Thomas JosephLeamy, EdmundThomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Craig, Robert HunterLeigh, Sir JosephThomas, J A(Glamorg'n, Gower
Crean, EugeneLeng, Sir JohnThompson, B.C.(Monaghan,N.
Daly, JamesLevy, MauriceTomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)Lloyd-George, DavidTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan-(CardiganLundon, W.Tully, Jasper
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesM'Dermott, PatrickWarner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Donelan, Captain A.M'Kenna, ReginaldWason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Doogan, P. C.Mansfield, Horace RendallWeir, James Galloway
Duffy, William J.Markham, Arthur BasilWhite, George (Norfolk)
Duncan, James H.Morton, Edw. J.C. (DevonportWhite, Luke (York, E.R.)
Dunn, Sir WilliamO'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master ofO'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, MidWilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Ellis, John EdwardO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Emmott, AlfredO'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.Young, Samuel (Cavan, East
Earquharson, Dr. RobertO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Yoxall, James Henry
Farrell, James PatrickO'Donnell, John (Mayo, S,)TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Caine and Mr. Thomas Bayley.
Fenwick, CharlesO'Dowd, John
Ffreneh, PeterO'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Item, Class 5, Vote 2, he reduced by £1,000, in respect of British East Africa."


Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)Burt, ThomasDavies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)Buxton, Sydney CharlesDavies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Allan, William (Gateshead)Caldwell, JamesDewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)Donelan, Captain A.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Causton, Richard KnightDoogan, P. C.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)Cawley, FrederickDuffy, William J.
Boyle, JamesClancy, John JosephDuncan, James H.
Brigg, JohnColville, JohnDunn, Sir William
Broadhurst, HenryCondon, Thomas JosephEllis, John Edward
Brunner, Sir John TomlinsonCraig, Robert HunterEmmott, Alfred
Burke, E. Haviland-Crean, EugeneFarquharson, Dr. Robert
Burns, JohnDaly, JamesFarrell, James Patrick

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 74.)

Fenwick, CharlesLough, ThomasScott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh
Ffrench, PeterLundon, W.Shipman, Dr. John G.
Field, WilliamMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Fitzmaurice, Lord EdmondM'Dermott, PatrickSoares, Ernest J.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)M'Kenna, ReginaldSpencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northant.
Fuller, J. M. F.Mansfield, Horace KendallSullivan, Donal
Furness, Sir ChristopherMarkham, Arthur BasilTaylor, Theodore Cooke
Gilhooly, JamesMorton, E. J. C. (Devonport)Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Goddard, Daniel FordO'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)Thomas, J A(Glamorg'n,Gower
Gurdon, Sir W. BramptonO'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)Thompson, E. C.(Monaghan, N.
Hammond, JohnO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Tomkinson, James
Harmsworth, R. LeicesterO'Coonor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Harwood, GeorgeO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Tully, Jasper
Hayden, John PatrickO'Donnoll, John (Mayo, S.)Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Holland, William HenryO'Dowd, JohnWason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Jameson, Major J. EustaceO'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)Weir, James Galloway
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonsh.)O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.White, George (Norfolk)
Jordon, JeremiahO'Malley, WilliamWhite, Luke (York, E. B.)
Joyce, MichaelO'Shaughnessy, P. J.Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Kearley, Hudson E.Partington, OswaldWilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Kennedy, Patrick JamesReddy, M.Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Kitson, Sir JamesRedmond, William (Clare)Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddrsfld
Lambert, GeorgeReid, Sir R. Threshie (DumfriesYoung, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Langley, BattyRigg, RichardYoxall, James Henry
Beamy, EdmundRoberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)
Leigh, Sir JosephRobson, William SnowdonTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Caine.
Leng, Sir JohnRoche, John
Levy, MauriceRoe, Sir Thomas
Lloyd-George, DavidSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)


Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.Chapman, EdwardGray, Ernest (West Ham)
Agg-Gardner, James TynteChurchill, Winston SpencerGreene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds
Agnew, Sir Andrew NoelClare, Octavius LeighGreene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.Colston, Chas. Edw. H. AtholeGreene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Anson, Sir William ReynellCook, Frederick LucasGretton, John
Archdale, Edward MervynCorbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)Greville, Hon. Ronald
Arkwright, John StanhopeCorbett, T. L. (Down, North)Groves, James Grimble
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.Cox, Irwin Edw. BainbridgeHain, Edward
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir EllisCranborne, ViscountHambro, Charles Eric
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. JohnCross, Alexander (Glasgow)Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G (Midd'x
Austin, Sir JohnCross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry
Bailey, James (Walworth)Cubitt, Hon. HenryHanbury, Rt. Rn. Robert W.
Bain, Colonel James RobertDalkeith, Earl ofHardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.
Baird, John George A.Dalrymple, Sir CharlesHare, Thomas Leigh
Balcarres, LordDavies, Sir Horatio D (ChathamHarris, Fleverton (Tynemouth
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'rDewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S.Geo.Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Banbury, Frederick GeorgeDickson, Charles ScottHaslett, Sir J. Horner
Bartley, George C. T.Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.Dimsdale, Sir Joseph CockfieldHeath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.)
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)Disraeli, Coningsby RalphHelder, Augustus
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Hogg, Lindsay
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.Doxford, Sir William TheodoreHope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside
Bignold, ArthurDurning-Lawrence, Sir EdwinHoult, Joseph
Bigwood, JamesElibank, Master ofHoward, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh
Bill, CharlesFaber, George DenisonHutton, John (Yorks, N.B.)
Blundell, Colonel HenryFergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'rJackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies
Bond, EdwardFielden, Edward BrocklehurstJebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Brassey, AlbertFinch, George H.Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. JohnFinlay, Sir Robert BannatyneJohnston, William (Belfast)
Brookfield, Colonel MontaguFisher, William HayesKennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. AlgernonKenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)
Bull, William JamesFletcher, Sir HenryKenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Burdett-Coutts, W.Flower, ErnestKing, Sir Henry Seymour
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.Garfit, WilliamLambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Cautley, Henry StrotherGibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)Laurie, Lieut.-General
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.Law, Andrew Bonar
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&NairnLawson, John Grant
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John EldonLegge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (BirmGoschen, Hon. George J.Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'rGoulding, Edward AlfredLeveson-Gower, Frederick N. S,

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.Pemberton, John S. G.Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.Pierpoint, RobertStewart, Sir Mark J.M Taggart
Lowe, Francis WilliamPilkington, RichardStock, James Henry
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)Platt-Higgins, FrederickStone, Sir Benjamin
Loyd, Archie KirkmanPretyman, Ernest GeorgeStroyan, John
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. EdwardStrutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Macdona, John CummingPurvis, RobertSturt, Hn. Humphry Napier
Maconochie, A. W.Randles, John S.Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh WRankin, Sir JamesTomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
M'Killop, James (StirlingshireRasch, Maj. Frederic CarneValentia, Viscount
Majendie, James A. H.Reid, James (Greenock)Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Maxwell, W J H (DumfriesshireRemnant, James FarquharsonWalker, Col. William Hall
Mildmay, Francis BinghamRentoul, James AlexanderWarde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.
Milward, Colonel VictorRenwick, GeorgeWebb, Col. William George
Molesworth, Sir LewisRidley, S. Forde (BethnalGreenWelby, Lt-Col A.C.E. (Taunt'n
Montagn, G. (Huntingdon)Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas ThomsonWhiteley, H (Ashton u-Lyne
Moon, Edward Robert PacyRobertson, Herbert (Hackney)Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
More, Robt. Jasper (ShropshireRolleston, Sir John F. L.Willox, Sir John Archibald
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-Wilson, A. S. (York. E.R.)
Morrell, George HerbertSadler, Col. Samuel AlexanderWilson, John (Falkirk)
Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Morrison, James ArchibaldSaunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)
Morton, Arthur H. A. (DeptfordSharpe, William Edward T.Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)Simeon, Sir HarringtonWolff, Gustay Wilhelm
Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)Sinclair, Louis (Romford)Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Newdigate, Francis AlexanderSkewes-Cox, ThomasWyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nicol, Donald NinianSmith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles LindsaySmith, H. C. (N'h' mb., Tyneside.
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Parker, GilbertSpear, John Ward
Parkes, EbenezerStanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Original Question again proposed.