I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the pledges given by the late Government last year as to the future policy of the Woods and Forests Department with reference to the development of Crown lands in Wales; whether the Commissioner of Woods and Forests has since that time visited various districts in Wales and made inquiries as to the possibilities of developing the lands in question by afforestation and in other ways; whether he will state what works have already been carried out or are contemplated by the Commissioner in Wales; whether large tracts of Crown wastes in the county of Denbigh have been found admirably adapted for plantations; and, whether, in view of the large annual income drawn by the Woods and Forests from Wales, he can give an assurance as to a further expenditure of money upon the development of Crown property in Wales in the interests of the Principality?

The pledge of the late Government was that careful personal inquiry should be made with a view to seeing what could properly be done towards developing the Crown lands in Wales. The Commissioner of Woods visited certain Crown wastes in Denbighshire last October and in Merionethshire last June. He intends to pay further visits to the Crown wastes. No works have been carried out except the making of a small plantation and addition to the buildings on a Crown farm in Merionethshire, and additions and repairs to various small farms in Carnarvonshire. There are portions of the Crown wastes in Denbighshire where planting would probably succeed, but the common rights existing over these wastes are a difficulty. It is the Commissioner's duty to see that a reasonable return is obtained on the money expended out of the Land Revenues of the Crown, and so he must take into consideration the question of a future market for the timber, and also the roads and facilities of transit. The annual income drawn from Wales consists largely of Rents and Royalties from Mines, and there is no need for expenditure by the Crown in the development of its mineral property.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is being done with reference to the Memorial of the permanent labourers of Her Majesty's Customs; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting these men 24s. per week, as received by men performing similar duties in other Government Departments?

This matter is still under the consideration of the Board of Customs, and cannot be settled until certain other questions affecting the subordinate officers of the Outdoor Department have been decided.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received an authoritative Report of the proceedings connected with the execution of the English trader, Stokes, on the Upper Congo; what was the nature of the charges against Stokes; whether he was tried by a court-martial upon which two Belgian Commissioned Officers declined to serve, their places being supplied by Non-Commissioned Officers; and whether a Belgian doctor present protested against the execution of Stokes, and declined to go further with Major Lothaire's expedition?

Her Majesty's Government have received certain documents relating to the execution of Mr. Stokes from the authorities of the Congo Free State. They do not, however, contain all the information desired by the hon. Member or asked for by Her Majesty's Government. These papers are now being examined, and I cannot at this moment say more than that they show the case to be of a very serious character.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will make public, during the Parliamentary Recess, the information received by them with reference to the execution of Mr. Stokes and the confiscation of his property?

The papers relating to the case are still imperfect. They have gone to the Secretary of State, but instructions have not yet been received from him on the point. The matter, however, is one to which my hon. Friend is justified in attaching great importance, and it will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to make representations to the French Government with reference to the claims of British subjects against the Malagasy Government and against Malagasy subjects, which the Malagasy Government have refused to recognise in consequence of the Treaty of August 1890, whereby Her Majesty's Government recognised the French Protectorate in Madagascar?

Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any claims which the Malagasy Government have refused to recognise on the grounds stated in the question, and in any case, while hostilities are proceeding between the French and the Hovas, the present would not be a favourable moment for the presentation of claims.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Critic of Johannesburg of 9th August; and whether the Boers are endeavouring to erect forts throughout Swaziland, and to establish Boer Courts in connection with these forts, contrary to the promise of Generals Joubert and Greet to the King in May last, that there should be only one Court at Bremersdorp, and for whites alone; whether the Swazi King has informed the Boer Administrator and Her Majesty's Representative that he will not permit the forts to be erected; and, what steps this Government propose to take to avert bloodshed?

I am informed that the Boers have established Courts in Swaziland; but I have no information whatever as to the establishment of forts. The Swazi King did, in the first instance, make some representations in regard to these Courts, but he has withdrawn his objection, and I do not anticipate any more difficulty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any action in connection with the closing of waggon treks on the Vaal River by the Boers?

The intimation of the hon. Gentleman only reached me as I entered the House. I am afraid I must ask for notice of the question.

said, that he wished to make a personal explanation. In answer to a question the other day, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that he had no proof at all as to the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Boers. He had furnished to the right hon. Gentleman three authentic letters from gentlemen in South Africa, whose names and addresses were given, but under secrecy. Two of them were eye-witnesses of the atrocities. He had further furnished the right hon. Gentleman with the statements of the independent Press of South Africa, and there was other evidence with which the right hon. Gentleman had not yet been furnished. He wished to make these facts public, because the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he had no proof would go out to South Africa, and would have a disastrous effect on the interests of the unfortunate natives. He had not the slightest doubt of being able to prove the charges which he had made; and he feared that the case against the Boer officials would be found graver than was at first supposed. He did not wish it to be thought that he had attacked the Boers as a race. There were many Boers of great humanity and advanced civilisation who reprobated these atrocities. But with regard to the ruling clique in the Transvaal and the officials on the native frontiers, it was impossible to speak too strongly of their inhumanity.

I can answer the hon. Member in a single sentence. He seems to be intellectually incapable of distinguishing between charges and the proof of them. He has conveyed to me a number of accusations against the Boers on the authority of gentlemen of whom I know absolutely nothing at the present time; and having conveyed to me those accusations, the hon. Member says that I am in possession of proof of their truth. What I have to do, and what I intend to do, is to test the evidence given to me; and if I find it accurate, I shall, of course, take steps. But at present I cannot assume that the evidence is necessarily true.

urged the Government to make greater progress with the important work of afforesting the Crown Lands in Wales. In Mr. Stafford Howard they had a sympathetic Commissioner, and he trusted that every facility would be given to him in prosecuting the important work which he had commenced. It had been shown repeatedly, on the authority of a Select Committee—and no attempt had been made either inside or outside the House to contradict it—that on the transactions of sale and investment of recent years, the Woods and Forests Department owed Wales £110,000. The question was how that amount could best be reinvested in Wales? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the effect that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ought to invest the moneys in their hands so as to secure a remunerative return, but he did not think it fair to a country like Wales, from which they received an annual income of about £15,000, that they should concentrate their investments upon ground rents in London. He contended that one of the best and most paying methods of reinvesting the amount due to Wales from the Woods and Forests Department was by reafforesting the Crown Lands. Private landowners made timber growing pay, and there was no reason why the Department should not do so. He was aware that there was one difficulty in the way. The Crown only possessed 500 acres of freehold property in Wales, although it had 84,110 acres of unenclosed land, and had rights over 364,000 acres. The rights of the commoners would have to be extinguished to a very small extent. He thought this could easily be done by purchase, and by agreement with the commoners, as only a comparatively small proportion of the enormous sheep walks which were owned by the Crown and were subject to common rights would be required for planting. In any event no injustice must be done to the commoners. If the situation were faced with a real desire to reafforest the Crown Lands, the difficulty would speedily disappear. Many private landowners were doing their duty by timbering large portions of their estate, and he thought it was the duty of the Crown to set a good example to all landowners, instead of lagging behind them, in reafforesting the land. Continental countries had discovered the advantage of growing timber. There was no European country in which the State did less for afforestation than in the United Kingdom. In Belgium within recent years, one-third of the waste land had been afforested, thus giving an immense amount of work to the unemployed—work that was permanently productive, and of a remunerative character. He had spoken upon this question in the interests of Wales, but there was a general question involved of the most important character. The United Kingdom imported £18,000,000 worth of timber a year. The timber stocks of the world were rapidly diminishing. Timber was cheap now, but it was a question whether it would be so cheap in 30 or 40 years' time. When they saw Sweden importing logs from America, it was the beginning of the end. There were 26 millions of acres of waste land in this country, and if only six millions of acres were planted, it would replace the timber we had now to import, and and would give work at a slack time of the year to an enormous number of men. Not only for the sake of beautifying the country, but also for the sake of the profit and employment it would bring, he hoped the Department would resolutely pursue the policy he had recommended. He further drew attention to the fact that some of the officials were paid by fees and poundage on the amount collected by them, instead of by fixed salaries. It was right that Members of the House should know what salaries these officers received from year to year, and that the amount received for the previous year should appear on the Estimates. The remuneration paid to some of these officials was extremely high. He instanced the case of one, who admitted in evidence given before a Select Committee that he received sums varying from £2,165 to £5,800, which was more than the salary of a Cabinet Minister. He was not arguing whether it was right or wrong that these large salaries should be paid, but that the House should know exactly from year to year what was paid. He hoped that by next year the manner in which the Estimates were now presented before the House of Commons would be radically altered. He had referred yesterday to the fact that the Committees on the Army and Navy Estimates had been discontinued. He thought that they should be reappointed, and that there should also be a Committee on the Civil Service Estimates. It was true that there was a Committee called the Committee of Public Accounts. So far as he could gather its work was chiefly to elaborately and carefully lock the stable door about two years after the steed had disappeared. A Town Council, or a County Council appointed Committees to control its spending departments, which supervised the work and saw that the expenditure was properly incurred. Then every figure was checked by the Finance Committee, and when the business came before the County Council or the Town Council, discussion was principally confined to questions of policy. He hoped that some system of this kind would be adopted in the House of Commons.