I have to move a series of Amendments to the Standing Orders of the House, but I hope it will not be expected that I shall make a statement on each, or that a Division shall be taken. I may explain that a great majority of the Amendments are merely drafting Amendments, with the purpose of bringing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons into accordance with those of the House of Lords. A certain number relating to Ireland are made necessary by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, the county council having to be substituted for the grand jury. Other Amendments extend the time for the completion of tramways, it having been found in practice that three years is not long enough for the completion of tramways, when the purchase of land is included in the Bill, especially now that electric traction is so generally adopted. We propose to cut out of the Standing Orders the word "subway" as a term of art. It was originally intended to cover such works as the underground railway, but it has never been used in that sense. The only matter which can in any sense be regarded as an Amendment of substance are two clauses relating to the provision of dwellings for occupiers of the working-class who are displaced. The most important change in this respect is the introduction for the first time of a definition of the word "house." It was thought that now, when so many of the working-classes are housed in big buildings accommodating 100 or 500 people, the term "house" should not cover the whole of such a building. It is proposed, therefore, to define "house" as "a tenement separately occupied by any person or persons." This will, for the present, only apply to London. Words are to be inserted which will enable the Committee to provide against the Standing Orders being evaded in this matter. Cases have recently occurred in which promoters have got round the Standing Orders by not taking all the houses required in one Bill, but spreading their net over several sessions, so that in no session are twenty houses taken. The Amendments on the Paper would enable the Committee to take into consideration the whole scheme, and whether under it more than twenty houses in London or ten houses in other towns are to be taken. There is one Amendment on the Paper which I do not propose to move. It is the 4th on page 16, and it embodies a proposal to make some fresh arrangement with regard to the delivery of notices. But the Post Office have not seen their way to fall in with our proposal, and therefore I do not press it. I hope, however, next session, to be able to simplify matters.

Has the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the number of houses in regard to which the provisions as to re-housing the displaced occupiers of the dwellings will be enforced, borne in mind that for every house taken the amount of population disturbed will be much greater in London than elsewhere?

That was so; but for some time the provision in the Standing Orders has referred to twenty houses in London, and ten houses 'elsewhere, and it has not been thought well to make a change in that respect at present.

Although there is no Standing Order to that effect, may we take it there is an understanding that in future Irish Bills will be initiated in the House of Commons?

That matter is not within the province of the Standing Orders. At the beginning of the session the Chairmen of the two Houses meet and arrange what Bills shall be initiated in each House.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, before next session, consider the desirability of increasing the number of dwellings to be replaced in the larger towns from ten to fifteen?

I shall be glad to consider representations from the larger towns as to the advisability of varying the provision in regard to the number of houses taken. My only anxiety has been not to proceed too quickly. This is a matter on which we should have to consult the Local Government Board.

I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question on this Vote, not with regard to matters which were talked over yesterday, but rather opening up a new phase in connection with the publication of Hansard's Debates. I wish to point out that many hon. Members who ordered copies of the Debates and did not show that lack of precaution displayed by other hon. Members, but instead withheld payment are apparently still unable to get the contract fulfilled. I come within that category. I received some time ago the volumes for 1898 from, the contractor, but as they were not bound according to sample I returned them. I have not yet received them back, but a bill has been sent to me charging for thirteen volumes with binding for 1898, £11 odd. Naturally I object to paying until I get the volumes. I did expect, when the arrangements passed into other hands, order would be evolved from chaos; but on, applying to the trustee in bankruptcy I was told he had only seven of the thirteen volumes in his possession, and that they could be seen at his offices at Old Jewry Chambers. I went there this afternoon, climbed to the top of the building, and found I had been wasting my time as there was nobody there who knew anything about the matter and my volumes could not be produced. I do wish to urge that after the discreditable history of this matter it is highly desirable that care should be taken that the person who has charge in future shall be capable of carrying out his arrangements.

I am glad to know that my right hon. friend is not one of those incautious people who paid for their volumes before they received them. My right hon. friend asks me to bear the blame, not only of the late contractor, but also of the trustee in bankruptcy. It is a little hard on the Government to be made responsible for that official, for we had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of that gentleman, who acts, I believe, under the direction of the court. My right hon. friend's only grievance, so far as I can see, is that his thirteen volumes are not forthcoming; but he has the satisfaction of knowing also that his £11 has not been forthcoming either. Therefore I do not. see that he has much to complain of at present.

The House will be aware that by a Bill which has just passed through Parliament powers hitherto exercised by the Science and Art Department are merged in the new Board of Education, and therefore, a new situation is being created. Now, the policy of the Science and Art Department since 1897 has been to create local authorities without any statutory right, simply by order, memorandum or circular, advising that such authorities or committees be formed in particular localities for the purpose of distributing the Science and Art grant, and to superintend, classify, and regulate the education given in the classes in connection with that Department. The point I wish to raise is as to whether the new Education Board will continue the same policy of forming these local committees; whether we are to go on adding to the existing confusion of jurisdiction and authorities, or are we to hold our hands until the Bill promised by the Lord President of the Council, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President, constituting local authorities, has passed through Parliament? Or, again, is any effort in the meantime to be made by the Board of Education to simplify and regulate the present confused system? I have always entered my protest on behalf of the School Boards in a number of our great towns against Article 7, under which these local committees have been appointed by the Science and Art Department. I have always lamented myself the form in which the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 was framed, however laudable its intentions, and however good its practical results to the students through the action of the various local authorities. I have always held that the effective control and development of secondary education, as well as elementary education, should be on the lines laid down by Mr. Acland in his Resolution of 1890, which he had no opportunity of moving, viz., that the simplification of all the issues in question lay in the formation of elective authorities deriving their authority from the people of the several districts. I have always held that the whole system of education—elementary, secondary, and technical—should be linked together and carried out on one broad general principle. Thus, by a system of direct election, education would be much more closely associated with the inhabitants of each area, so as to enlist the greatest enthusiasm and most active support of the largest number of persons, and especially of the working-classes. In short, the true solution lay in the direction pointed out by Mr. Acland years ago—the encouragement of the direct, as opposed to the indirect, election of the authorities. But the policy of the Science and Art Department, for two years past, has placed serious barriers all over the country against the true and natural development of the School Board system. The policy of Article 7, like the policy of the Bill of 1896, was distinctly directed to oust popular control permanently from those new branches of education towards which such popular control would naturally move forward if left alone to work itself out in its own way. I have protested against that policy in the past and shall continue to protest against it in the interests of our School Boards. I thank the Government for having introduced a Bill creating a Board of Education to deal, not merely with secondary and technical education, but with the whole subject. I thank the Vice-President also for having refused to accept Amendments which would have separated one branch from the other, and would have destroyed unity of administration. I trust that we shall not see in the action of the new educational authority the policy persisted in of multiplying these nondescript authorities, illegal in their constitution and absolutely artificial in their construction, and not representative in any true sense of the word. However useful the work of some of them may be, they rest upon a wholly unsound basis, which we in this House, in the interests of the education of the people, ought to resist. This is not a new opinion, nor is it the opinion of specially advanced men, who would deal with these questions rather by theory than by practice. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the. Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission long ago recommended the development of the control of these branches of education through directly-elected authorities as opposed to anything such as is now being carried out by the Science and Art Department. The Report pointed out that no school or organisation could do so much for education as the earnest co-operation of the people. I want to see enlisted the sympathies and active help of the largest number of people. I am speaking with some knowledge of the working of this question in my own division, for there, through the organisations of the working-classes in co-operative and friendly and trade societies, we have secured a body of representative working-men who are doing work of the highest possible importance. Of course, it is possible by nomination to secure the assistance of educational enthusiasts and experts, but it is far better to obtain their help by the method of direct election, for then they have behind them a force of popular opinion such as you cannot get behind nominated bodies. These nondescript bodies were patched together on no plan or principle, and there might be favouritism in selection. There ought to be a distinct Board elected on a representative basis. The recommendation of the Commission had been that half should be thus directly elected. It seems to me that the policy of the Education Bill of 1896 upon this question was——

Order, order! The hon. Member appears to me to be dealing with matters of legislation, which are, therefore, not pertinent to the Resolution.

I fear, Sir, I have failed to convey my meaning. I was arguing that the exercise up to the present moment of the powers of the Science and Art Department in arbitrarily constituting local authorities, which have no direct basis in popular election, was not only undesirable but was opposed to what was recommended by an important Education Commission. But I need not pursue that subject further. All I ask is that the new Board of Education should adopt what seems to me to be a broader, more generous, and more popular view, and that it should not use the powers handed over to it by the Science and Art Department by continuing to create these local committees without any statutory basis whatever, but that it should rather suspend its action in this direction until the Bill constituting local authorities to deal with these questions passes through Parliament. In conclusion, I will only say that I have regarded, and do regard, in the same sense, I believe, as the present Lord President of the Council did in 1876, direct authority as the only proper solution of these complicated issues, and the only solution which will bring to bear upon them the forces which tend most strongly to the highest possible development of education. And, in order to emphasise the expression of that opinion on behalf of those who are interested in the great School Boards of the country, I now move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

I think the hon. Gentleman has certainly shown that the present state of affairs with regard to the administration of the Science and Art Department is very unsatisfactory, although there is some hope for us to be found in the fact that this body is to be largely abolished, and some steps are to be taken to mitigate the evils of which complaint is justly made. May I ask my right hon. friend if he can hold out any expectation that one very mischievous policy of the Department will henceforth cease to be enforced? It has, in pursuance of powers which have been handed over to it under the head of technical manual instruction, provided for instruction in Latin and Portuguese, amongst other subjects which appear wholly outside technical or manual instruction. I warned my colleagues upon the county council of which I am a member not to allow the Science and Art Department to mismanage affairs, and succeeded in getting Latin and Portuguese struck of the list of subjects which might be taught at the public expense; but there are still many absurd subjects remaining, and I fear the abuse is one which prevails in many other parts of the country. The Science and Art Department appears to be a body which is, to a large extent, independent; for when we call attention to its vagaries the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the matters are not within his official cognisance. But he also assures us that he exercises personal superintendence, and therefore I hold he must be responsible for the schedule to which I have just called attention. It is evidently clear that money intended by Parliament to be devoted to technical education has been improperly used by school boards, and notably the London School Board, for other purposes, and I did hope that when this practice of breaking the law was brought under his notice, the right hon. Gentleman would have given us some assurance that it would be put a stop to. I think we ought to expect that my right hon. friend, who has acknowledged his responsibility to this House for the action of the bodies on whose behalf he speaks, should insist on the law being obeyed. The school boards of this country have undoubtedly made themselves extremely unpopular in various ways, but that they should deliberately break the law, and that the official representative of the Department in Parliament should confess his inability to make them observe the law is, I think, a public scandal. I hope my right hon. friend will give us an assurance that if it is brought to his knowledge that any public body over which he exercises official control is breaking the law, he will take steps to see that the law is observed.

I always listen with interest and respect to the criticisms which my right hon. friend passes on matters of this kind. As I understand him, he enters a protest against the teaching of foreign languages in our public schools.

Oh, no. I was only referring to the schedule of subjects issued by the Science and Art Department for the guidance of County Councils.

In whatever direction my right hon. friend's criticisms were directed, I venture to say that the teaching of foreign languages in our schools is a matter which demands most careful consideration.

What about Latin?

I do not include Latin, although it is very advantageous as a basis for acquiring other languages. Take Portuguese. Some people may regard Portuguese as an out-of-the-way language, but my knowledge of the demands of commercial education tells me that three languages are of especial importance—Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. Anyone who is familiar, for instance, with the demands of the South American trade must be perfectly well aware that unless our people are very much better equipped with the instruments of international trade they will lose ground, as they are doing now to some extent, in the commercial competition of the world. I know of no language which is more useful, and which is more practically and peculiarly advantageous to the person who knows it than Spanish. In the City, a person who has a thorough knowledge of Spanish can command a considerably higher salary than a person knowing almost any other language. In teaching French and other foreign languages in our Board schools, we are performing a national and absolutely necessary duty. It maybe said that a knowledge of French, Spanish, and Portuguese would be unnecessary in many cases, but we have to teach all those things that suit the people generally, and then let the individual make practical use of them. I distinctly approve of the suggestion of teaching foreign languages in our schools, as the want of knowledge of them frequently hampers our trade with other nations.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentle- man that Portuguese is a very important language, and that instruction in foreign languages and other commercial subjects is quite as important to this country as technical and manual instruction. We have in this country, shops, factories, and mills, with an admirable and practical system of instruction in technical and manual subjects, but we have no system of instruction in commercial subjects; whereas in Switzerland, France, and Belgium there are well-equipped commercial schools. I rejoice to know that England and Wales are at last doing something in this direction also. On this Vote I had intended to indulge in many strictures on the administration of the Science and Art Department, but I feel that we are at the outset of a new era, as a result of the passing of the Board of Education Bill. The administration of the Department will probably be transformed, and we shall obtain a new charter for science and art teaching in this country. Under the circumstances, I will not trouble the House with the observations I had intended to make. I hope that there will be a proper development of really artistic teaching, and also of technical and manual teaching; and if we are prepared for that, I do not think in a few years we shall regard our country as so far behind in educational matters as it is at present.

I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in any re-organisation that may be made in the Department, not to forget the claim of Wales to a museum grant. The right hon. Gentleman has treated us with great courtesy in the matter, and it is therefore not necessary for me to say anything further.

I hope the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire with excuse me if I do not follow him at length in the speech he made on the conduct of the Science and Art Department with reference to Section 7. I have often explained in this House what has been done The Science and Art Department make use of the Technical Instruction Committees and other local bodies to distribute grants. The system prevents overlapping and has proved otherwise effective, and I am very glad that the policy of Section 7 is making steady progress, and that a number of county and borough councils are coming into the scheme. As far as I know, the present Department has no intention of modifying that policy.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit that the Science and Art Department has taken it upon itself to delegate the duty of distributing these grants to locally created bodies which have no statutory basis?

The Science and Art Department has power to do that. It is doing what it has a perfect right to do, in a manner which it thinks most economical and wise. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, the Department has never sanctioned Latin. As regards Portuguese, the Science and Art Department has no control in the matter at all. The right hon. Gentleman was very severe on the Department because it had not prevented the illegal expenditure of money by the London School Board in teaching science and art. I explained to the House on a previous occasion that it has pleased Parliament to entrust the control of school board expenditure, not to the Education Department, but to the Local Government Board. The Science and Art Department cannot interfere with the London School Board, and has no right to say whether a particular item of expenditure is right or wrong. As to the legality of the expenditure, the decision is with the Local Government Board. I have no power to make school boards observe the law, but while on this particular case, I am very glad of the opportunity of stating how the matter stands. No doubt the auditor of the School Board for London has decided that its expenditure upon science and art teaching is illegal, and his general decision is expressed in every case in these words:

"School boards have no legal authority to use, expend, or apply any portion of the school funds in or about the instruction or examination of day schools or classes in science and art."

The School Board for London has applied to the Local Government Board on two or three occasions for permission to appeal against the decision of the auditor.

At any rate, there is the ruling laid down by the auditor. This is not the first time that a decision of that kind has been given; it has never been upset, and I have no doubt whatever that that expresses the law. What is the Science and Art Department to do in these circumstances? It is quite clear that it cannot abruptly withdraw all its grants, and it must assume that the School Board will now bring itself within the law. But we could hardly expect a change of that kind to be made in a week or a fortnight, especially if the School Board are appealing against the decision. As to the question of a museum grant for Wales, I have no doubt that it will receive most favourable consideration from the new Board of Education.

With regard to the question of the science and art money, there has been a conflict of authority and great difficulty in ascertaining what is, and what is not, the law on the subject. My right hon. friend says the decision arrived at by the Local Government Board was not a new decision, but was in confirmation of previous decisions. As far as I know, the last case was decided in 1889—ten years ago—and since that time the School Board has gone on establishing schools and classes which have been to a very large extent successful, and which have undoubtedly played a very important part in the work of public education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet spoke about the action of the School Board for London, and drew attention to the fact that a part of the expenditure had been surcharged by the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what the London School Board are going to do. As a member of that distinguished body, I should like to assure my right hon. friend that we are going to obey the law, but we wish to ascertain what the, law really is. That is a very important, matter, and one which affects not, London only, but all interested in education throughout the country, and I am bound to say that I think if the School Board for London appeals, as I believe they intend to, they will take the right course in the matter. My right hon. friend knows that so far as one of the chief sources of our overlapping is concerned, the School Board for London have entered into amicable and convenient, working arrangements with the Technical Instruction Board and the London County Council, which will, I trust, prevent these evils in the future. With regard to the local authorities, I sympathise a great deal with the theory held by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. I think that the school boards have established, by long and consistent service, the right to claim some representation on these new authorities. The Royal Commission offered very fair and practicable terms, and I hope that the Department will, so far as they can, see that those school boards in the country have a fair and adequate representation.

As the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire laid a rather heavy hand on an offspring of mine—the Technical Instruction Act—I should, like to say one word with regard to it. In framing that measure I was met with some difficulty at every point. But the operation of the Act has grown, and spread a veritable network of technical instruction throughout the country. I believe that in future it will assist to solve the remaining difficulties of our educational system, by leading to the formation of local authorities for secondary education.

I gave notice to move in Committee of Supply a reduction upon two particular items in this Vote: Item (a) in respect to Uganda, which includes the Martyr Expedition, and Item (c) in respect to British East Africa, which includes the Juba Expedition. I propose to take the two together at this present stage of Report, and to move a reduction of £200. I shall be very brief, in accordance with the general desire that we have to discuss as many as possible of the Votes to-day which were not discussed yesterday or previously. We have a certain difficulty in discussing this Vote in the absence of the Under Secretary, because the few words we wish to say are chiefly on points as to which he has full information, which is probably not in the possession of other members of the Government. But I have no doubt he will be here directly. The Martyr Expedition, which is provided for in this Vote, is an expedition which was despatched from Uganda down the Nile, in the direction of Fashoda, to put it generally. It has continued, and is still upon the Nile at the present time, and it has followed the course of the Nile, and not left it for any considerable distance. The Martyr Expedition found the Congolese forces on the Congo side of the Nile, outside that district to which it was supposed they were confined. The Congolese, by an arrangement with this country, received two leases of territory which we claimed as being a portion of the British sphere of influence, which has since been called the Anglo-Egyptian sphere of influence upon the Nile. One lease dealt with a strip of land along the Nile bank, and the other lease concerned the whole of the territory at the back of that strip, and is generally called the Bahr-el-Ghazal country. The two leases together covered the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Egyptian province of Bahr-el-Ghazal. These leases were denounced by France, acting in concurrence with Germany, Germany not being herself concerned in these particular leases, and the result of the action of France and Germany was that the King of the Belgians renounced to France, without any negotiations with this country, the whole of one of those two leases and a half of the second. The King of the Belgians promised the French Government he would withdraw his troops and his officers from the whole of the Bahr-el-Ghazal country, and from a point about the middle of the other strip along the Nile, and he withdrew his forces into what is commonly called the Lado enclave. Our Government took no action in this matter, but left the King of the Belgians to make his own agreement with France. I have put questions twice this session to the Government with regard to what is to be the future of these territories. At one moment the Government have spoken of these territories as though they were of great potential or great future value. On two occasions recently they have told us that they cannot make any statement with regard to the future of these territories, that at present the country is too unsettled and there is too little known about it, and that it is impossible at present to make any definite statement with regard to the future. Now, Sir, the King of the Belgians or his friends in Brussels have been stating repeatedly of late that he is the inheritor of this country, that the leases are still existent, and that the whole of the Bahr-el-Ghazal territory which was at one time in dispute between the Anglo Egyptians on the one side and the French on the other will fall to him. The Government here have very carefully abstained from denying that statement. They have twice been asked about it, and they have only said that they could say nothing at present with regard to what is to be the future of this country. Now, we have at least once debated in this House the character of Congolese rule; some of us have made strong statements based upon the knowledge that is before the different geographical societies, and which is given to us by the formal documents of the Congo State itself, with regard to the nature of the rule of the Congo State. I think it may be said without the slightest fear of contradiction that the Congolese rule is the worst of the rules to which any portion of the African peoples are subject. Some of us have always attacked this policy of leases to the Congo State. I am one of those who do not believe in the value of the interior of Africa, or in the likelihood of our getting back the money we spend there, But we are there; we have incurred an immense responsibility by being there, and, being there, the worst thing we can possibly do for the territories is to hand them over to the Congo State. Therefore the reduction which I have moved with regard to the expenditure on the Martyr Expedition is intended to elicit from the Government some statement as to what is to be the future of these territories, as to whether the King of the Belgians is right in stating that these leases to him still continue and that he is to be the ruler of the whole of the Bahr-el-Ghazal territory. In the absence of the Under Secretary we shall not be able, I suppose, to get any assurances from the Government, and it is a little difficult to debate the matter at all in his absence. The only other remark I will make upon item (a) is that the cost of the Uganda Protectorate is very great, in spite of a distinct statement to this House at the time that Protectorate was entered upon that the cost to this country would not exceed £50,000 a year. When we are asked to engage upon other operations of a similar kind, and when we are told that the cost of those operations will be very small, and when we get Bills like the Bill we were debating a few days ago and are told that the net cost of certain operations will be but a very small sum, it is interesting to remember how enormous the expenditure on Uganda has been against the definite statement that the total expenditure would not exceed £50,000 a year. With regard to the reduction on the other item I have named—item (c)—that concerns the Juba Expedition. I have never known any case in the whole course of my experience of this House where the House has been so completely misled by a Government as in the case of the Juba Expedition. When that expedition was first sent out the very name of it suggested that it was an expedition in the direction of the River Juba, a river the first 200 miles of which have been frequently traversed by small British men-of-war, and the upper course of which have been followed by three distinguished British travellers, and which is as well known as any of the African rivers. The object of the expedition, however, was explained to us in a Blue Book, and there was a curious phrase in that Blue Book which went to show that its real object was to anticipate the French at Fashoda. It is now admitted by the Prime Minister that that was the case, that the expedition never was intended to go anywhere in the direction of the Juba, and that it was intended to go in the direction I have specified. Colonel Macdonald, the head of the expedition, has recently read a paper before the Geographical Society, and has given a full and complete account of the expedition. [At this point the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs entered the House.] I am glad to see the Under Secretary now in his place. I was just saying that the House had been entirely misled originally with regard to the Juba Expedition, and that the extent to which they had been misled had been now shown by the Prime Minister's speech in another place, and by the paper which Colonel Macdonald has recently read before the Geographical Society, and the map which accompanies that paper. Of course, we know that the Juba Expedition was virtually stopped by the rising in Uganda, and that it only succeeded in reaching a point twenty miles to the north of Lake Rudolph, which had been passed by three previous travellers, and of which we had complete surveys and full information, and then it went off in another direction straight towards the Nile. There it got within about 100 miles of Lado, a point on the Nile which was occupied by Congolese forces, and about which, also, everything is known. The discoveries made by Colonel Macdonald's Expedition within 100 miles of the Nile are of some geographical interest; they add to our knowledge about the country, but they are entirely outside the scope of the operations which it was pretended this Expedition was to undertake; and instead of being in the direction of the River Juba, they are in exactly an opposite direction, as we always said they were intended to be. I merely mention that to show how absolutely the House was misled when it was asked to incur expenditure on the Juba Expedition. [The right hon. Gentleman then briefly re-stated that portion of his speech which he had delivered in the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and moved the reduction of the Vote by £200.].

was understood to say that the right hon. Baronet asked for information as to a divergence of opinion of which he had also complained in March last, when the matter was discussed. The complaint amounted to this, that Colonel Macdonald was sent on an Expedition to Lake Rudolph, the Expedition was afterwards diverted in the direction of the Nile, but the House was not originally told that the Expedition would be sent in that direction.

We were told differently by the Government.

said the whole matter could be divided into two parts. The late Under Secretary made a statement a year and a half ago, and the right hon. Baronet now complained that it did not tally with a statement made some months afterwards. The primary object of Colonel Macdonald's Expedition was of an exploring nature, but months afterwards further possibilities undoubtedly did present themselves, and Colonel Martyr, six months after the late Under Secretary made his statement, did start with the object of going down the Nile. He had never been able to see on what the right hon. Baronet's grievance was based. His grievance was that he was not taken fully into counsel at the earliest possible moment as to what might possibly be the ultimate result of Colonel Macdonald's Expedition. But when the troops were sent to the Nile, it was announced at the earliest possible date after the meeting of Parliament, and he (the speaker) could not see that the right hon. Baronet had any serious grievance. With regard to the leases to the Congo State, they were made subject to rights of Egypt. Those rights, which were then dormant, were now revived, and obviously in any negotiations those rights would have to be considered. The right hon. Baronet had said he did not believe in the value of this territory——

I said that, personally, I had my doubts as to the value of the country. But putting that aside altogether, I say we are morally responsible for its future, and we ought not to hand it over to so bad a Government as that of the Congolese.

thought a great deal of the value must depend upon the results of the surveying which would be undertaken, but until it was known what works might at some future date be undertaken with regard to the White Nile, it was obviously impossible to make any statement on the subject. The right hon. Baronet had also said that the cost of the Uganda Protectorate ought not to exceed £50,000 a year.

No. I alluded, in passing, to the fact that £50,000 was named as the outside sum when the Uganda Protectorate was taken over. I was using that fact as showing how greatly the House is deceived by estimates of that kind.

pointed out that estimates were liable to change, but the Foreign Office were sanguine that the estimates now put before the House would be ultimately brought within narrower limits. Sir Henry Johnston, an administrator of great experience, had been sent out, and it was hoped that both civil and military administrations would be put on a basis suitable to carry on the work, and at the same time reduce the expenditure. The House must guard itself from believing that in such cases as these the exact future expenditure could be foretold, but the Estimates were very carefully prepared. With regard to the condition of the Uganda Protectorate, it was a greal deal better than it was four or five months ago. The mutiny had completely died out, and there was no doubt whatever that the work of administration would be proceeded with greater experience, and might be expected to assimilate to the work in East Africa, where revenue was coming in and the expenditure was being brought within reasonable limits.

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a duty which I have no intention of performing. The hon. Gentleman expects me to say something as to the railroad in Uganda, but as I cannot enter into that subject in the way I desire I will only say this. The hon. Gentleman insists that we shall be able to finish that railroad at the estimated cost. If the railroad is finished at the amount of the estimate, I will frankly admit that I am in the wrong; if it is not, then the hon. Gentleman, with that candour for which he is famed, will admit that he is wrong. We have always been told that we may anticipate that expenditure will be less in the future; the hon. Gentleman is of a somewhat sanguine mind if he thinks it will be so in this case. It will be found that Uganda does not pay its way, and the result will be that we shall gradually retire from, that country. The ultra-Jingo persons will grumble, but the Government will withdraw from places like Uganda. The Chancellor of the Exchequer usually takes sound financial views in these matters, and it will become more and more difficult to obtain money from him, and we shall retire from that country. I certainly think my right hon. friend has a grievance with regard to this Juba Expedition. The House was told that the object of the Expedition was to explore the sources of the Juba river—why, I do not know; but money having been obtained for that specific purpose, the Expedition never went near the Julia

I desire to offer my very cordial acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for what he has done for the island of Cyprus since he came into office. I had an opportunity of visiting the island in the early part of this year, and I found in every way, both material and economic, evidence of material improvement. The roads are very much better than they used to be. Good and substantial bridges have replaced fords which formerly were almost impassable, and land drains have been made which are the means of carrying off the occasional floods which sometimes do a great deal of devastation. The great difficulty of the island has always been the droughts to which it has been subjected. On one occasion, I believe, a drought lasted for thirty years; but, happily, recently there has been great improvement owing to the afforestation which has taken place, and the droughts now are neither so great or so frequent as they used to be. One of the chief ways in which the right hon. Gentleman has served the island is by meeting the great physical difficulty of the island, which consists in the steepness of the descent to the sea from mountains very near the coast. This led to the rain water rapidly passing away, thus producing the droughts. At Famagusta a great reservoir for irrigation purposes has been constructed, and that I think will be the means of preventing the effects of drought to a large extent. As in Egypt, the result of irrigation will be to increase the productive powers of the island, and, consequently, very greatly increase the prosperity of the inhabitants. Anyone who has been in Cyprus knows the difficulty of either landing on or getting away from the island. That has to be done in an open roadstead, and frequently travellers have been detained on the island for a considerable period, owing to steamers not being able to get close in shore. An improved service of steamers has been arranged for. All goods have to be trans-shipped into lighters at considerable cost, and risk at times; but, in spite of these difficulties, there has been great growth in the shipping industry and regular communication has been established between the island and Liverpool, Hull, and other British ports. That communication is greatly stimulating the production of the island, particularly as regards the fruit of the carob tree, which is the principal ingredient in the manufacture of feeding stuffs. There has also been a considerable stimulus of the local industries of the island, owing to the general improvements that have taken place. The wine production has considerably increased. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increase the wine duties, I wrote him a letter pointing out the effect that would have on this industry. Even, he was not aware how great was the recent growth of the wine industry of the island, both for actual consumption, and as a basis for the wines of other countries. The methods of manufacture are greatly improved, and I believe the industry will speedily attain to very considerable importance. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies done excellent work in improving external communication, but he is making a railway from Famagusta to Nicosia, which will cross the most fertile plain in the island, and which will be found to be a distinctly reproductive and remunerative work. I had a conversation with Lieutenant Richards, R.E., who told me there are no engineering difficulties, and that in all likelihood the railway will be extremely useful. The silk industry, in which I know the right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest, has been advanced, and the planting of mulberry, trees has greatly increased of recent years. There are some old and some new textile industries, which, to say the least, are very promising. Perhaps the best feature in the present condition of the island is the collective and co-operative agriculture which has been established. That system, which has done so much for Denmark, and, to a less extent, for Ireland, promises to be distinctly useful to the trade of the island. The stock and the character of the seeds have been very much improved, owing to the measures taken by the right hon. Gentleman. Even in municipal mattes there has been progress. At Limasol, the water supply, sanitation, and education are conducted under municipal auspices. For these things I am able to convey to the right hon. Gentleman the assurances of the gratitude of the Cypriotes, and the firm belief that, in doing what he has done, he has promoted the prosperity of the island, and of the Empire of which it forms a part. The present proposal is for a new grant in aid. Grants in aid are acceptable, but I am bound to add that the feeling in the island, which is well founded, is that these grants in aid would be wholly superfluous and unnecessary if the island were dependent on its own financial resources. If the tribute to Turkey had not to be paid, there would be a large surplus, and that surplus could be devoted to public works. The feeling in the island is very strong against the tribute, and is a source of very great discontent. I have had the opportunity of seeing many of those who take an active interest in the affairs of the island, and one and all protest against the payment of the tribute, because it prevents the execution of public works out of the island's own resources, and also because it is a very great limitation on the reproductive powers of the island, owing to the high taxation, having regard to the means of the inhabitants. Various causes have been attributed to the origin of the tribute. One is that our Ambassador was not fully aware of the facts, that the amount paid to Turkey in the past was exaggerated, and not properly collected, that it was paid very irregularly and in paper currency, and was not equivalent to the sum the island is now called upon to pay. If the original proposals of this country had been carried out; if, as was first intended, Cyprus had been made a place of arms, and if great public works had been constructed there, the tribute might have become a matter of comparatively less importance. But now we have changed our whole policy, and these great public works will probably never be carried out. Yet the island is called upon to pay a very large sum, in the fixing of which it had no part. I do think that there is a claim on the consideration of this country, and that the strong feeling which exists in the island on the subject is not without some foundation. I am quite aware that the association of the tribute with the guaranteed loan of 1855, is accidental. At the same time, it is a very singular circumstance that the amount of the tribute and the interest on that loan closely coincide, and one theory is, that the fixture of the amount of the tribute was a very convenient mode of dealing with that financial matter. I know that this is a matter with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is primarily concerned, but it is one on which some change should be made. One other subject I must mention, and that is that the wharf age dues, which were intended to be temporary, have been made permanent, and no considerable portion of them is devoted, as the islanders think they should be, to the construction of piers, harbours, and like works. Another complaint is that articles of general antiquarian interest have been removed from the island to this country, America, and elsewhere, instead of being left on the island for the attraction of travellers, and the education of its own people. I repeat, that from my own observation, from the results which are already apparent, from the cordial feeling of the islanders themselves, the greatest obligation is felt to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies for his policy of development in this, as in other colonial possessions of the Empire.

As I had a motion for the reduction of this Vote, which I was unable to move yesterday, I should like to say a few words on this subject. I should wish to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Islington has said as to the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman in developing the resources of Cyprus. My own opinion is that Cyprus should form part of the Hellenic kingdom of the future, and I hope that may be a happy solution of the problem in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. Undoubtedly, as long as Cyprus is under the control of British power, it should be treated in the spirit of the kindly and wise administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The only question I wish to bring before the House is that of the tribute, on the grounds of the interest of the taxpayers of this country, as well as in the interest of the inhabitants of Cyprus. It is perfectly clear that if it were not for the tribute there would be a considerable surplus in the revenues of Cyprus, even if taxation were reduced, which might be applied to useful public works in the island. That is impossible now, because the tribute paid to Turkey creates a deficit which in some years amounts to a considerable sum. This tribute is connected with the guarantee of the payment of certain loans advanced to the Sultan in 1855 by various speculators in England and France, with whom I have but slender sympathy. It seems to me that the financial genius of the British Government should be devoted to meet the views of the inhabitants of Cyprus, and that some reasonable compromise should be come to as to the payment of the tribute. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to indicate whether some means may not be arrived at, if not to extinguish the whole of the tribute, at any rate, to reduce it to something like the proportion which it ought to have been when the undertaking was given in connection with the Cyprus Convention. I should like, if I were in order, to enter on the wider topic, whether we have not the right to deal with this tribute in connection with the terms of the Cyprus Convention. We have done nothing within the whole of these years to insist on the Sultan performing his part of the contract, in regard to the protection of the Christian population of the East from barbarous cruelties. It seems to me not beyond the reach of statesmanship to make this question of the tribute a means by which we can enforce on the Sultan the carrying out of these obligations.

I desire to associate myself entirely with all which my hon. friend the Member for South Islington has said concerning the good work done by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the inhabitants of Cyprus. I think it would be a small thing to say that the right hon. Gentleman has done more for the island than all the other Colonial Secretaries since the occupation of the island. I wish he could see his way, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to provide for further public works on the island. I have had the opportunity lately of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that Famagusta should be a free port, so that merchants, instead of taking their goods to Beirut, where they have to pay very heavy customs duties, should bring them to Famagusta, where they would be able to draw from their stocks as orders came in from Asia Minor and Syria. They would therefore have only to pay duties on such stock as was required for immediate sale. Then, Famagusta could be made into a commercial harbour. There can be no doubt that the existing harbour is too small to accommodate any but very small ships, and I hope that the success of the experiment which the right hon. Gentleman is now making will justify the enlargement of the harbour at Famagusta, and that the time may even come when the First Lord of the Admiralty shall establish a naval arsenal there, for nature has provided it with accommodation which would allow of the swinging of twelve ironclads. As to the wharfage dues, touched on by the hon. Member for South Islington, this question affects Limasol and Larnaca, where particularly the grievance is felt that these dues are not devoted to the improvement of the harbours. Larnaca is only an open roadstead with a very small harbour, and if the serf happens to be running, it is impossible to land men or goods. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the claims of merchants, both in Larnaca and Limasol, to improve the harbour accommodation there. The money might be provided or a grant-in-aid. I have great hopes of the future of the island under its present enlightened administration. For taking the figures since its occupation in 1878, the whole of the revenues amounted, up to 31st March, 1898, to nearly three and a-half millions, and the expenditure on the island during that period has only been about two and a-quarter millions, leaving an excess of revenue over expenditure of £1,193,000. I think everyone must see that if the island were only left to spend its own money, it would be exceedingly prosperous; and, instead of coming to this House for loans or grants in aid, there would be such a balance in the local exchequer as to reduce the too hard taxation of the inhabitants. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared now to make any statement concerning the Convention signed between Turkey and England yesterday a year ago. We know nothing about it, excepting for one paragraph which appeared in The Times on the 5th August last. What are the conditions of the Convention? The Leader of the House spoke a few days ago of a Bill to ratify that Convention, but no Bill has appeared. I should like to know what are the conditions of that Convention, and whether it will be a relief to the Imperial Treasury, or a relief to Cyprus itself. I should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever views he may have held upon this matter, the Cypriotes are certainly deserving of great sympathy from himself, and from everyone else, because they have been paying this large amount of money. It may be that this money is properly paid, or it may not be; but, at all events, we make them pay it according to the Convention with Turkey in 1855. According to the Convention, the interest on the guaranteed loan of 1885 was to be paid from the residue of the Egyptian tribute, and after that from the customs dues of Smyrna and Syria. I have not been able to find that any serious attempt has ever been made to get hold of these customs dues. After taking possession of the island of Cyprus in 1878, I suppose it was seen that it would be an easier way to pay the creditors of the loan out of the revenues of Cyprus. I should like to mention that the country which benefits most from our possession of Cyprus is France. Because its liabilities have been paid to the last penny, from the default of Turkey, by Great Britain, and France has had to simply ask for their money to get it, and give a receipt. It is interesting to note that while France gets with punctual regularity the payment of £41,000 of interest on the guaranteed loan, England has occasionally got off with a loss of £50,000 a year by the occupation of Cyprus; for when the finances of the island are bad we have to make grants in aid, with the result that France benefits at our expense. I hope that some day we may be able to do something substantial for the benefit of those people, who were intended to be an object lesson in the Eastern Mediterranean of the beneficence and justice of English rule.

I am obliged to all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for the kind appreciation which has been expressed of the efforts of the Colonial Office to improve the condition of the island, and without making any invidious claim for myself, as compared with my predecessors, I think that the English Government have some right to congratulate themselves on the immense improvements which they have carried out. Very recently, not only have the roads of the island been placed in good repair, but surveys have been made with a view to proceeding with a railway across the island. It is also intended to improve the state of the harbour at Famagusta, and, most important of all, a large experiment in irrigation is also being undertaken. I am advised by the experts that it is likely to be financially successful, and in that case we may look forward to still further improvement. The question of the taxation raised in the island has also been under consideration, and a number of changes, all to the advantage of the taxpayers, have been made. With regard to much of the produce chiefly grown by the small cultivators, we have abolished the tithe—a very irritating tax and difficult to collect; and with regard to olives and olive oil, it is hoped that it will be possible to substitute an export duty for the tithe. There are many other matters in which careful attention has been given to the wants of the islanders, and in which there has been a material improvement of their condition. I am glad to hear that they recognise the good-will of the British Government, and are grateful for what has been done. One result has been that the revenue of the island has greatly increased. Last year it amounted to no less than £210,000, which is the largest sum ever raised in the island during the British occupation,, except for one abnormal year, 1891, when the harvest was exceptionally productive, and consequently the revenues went up. The expenditure has been £135,000, and the difference is, of course, accounted for by the tribute. Hon. Members have expressed the wish that the island could be relieved of this obligation. So do Her Majesty's Government; but it is not an obligation which the Government have placed on the island, it is an obligation which we took over with the island. Without adopting the very drastic suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, which would be in defiance of our international obligations, we cannot say to the Sultan of Turkey at the present time that this tribute, which we engaged to pay, shall no longer be paid to him. But the islanders have been led by local people who are insufficiently acquainted with the real history of this matter to suppose that they have exceptional claims to relief; and these statements have been repeated so often that they begin to believe them. It is therefore necessary to go back once more to the way in which this obligation was incurred. To read some of these statements which come from Cyprus, one would suppose that the island was worse off under British rule than under the Turkish régime. Under the Turkish régime the tribute was paid just the same; but the amount of money which the Turks spent in Cyprus never exceeded £30,000; whereas we spend £135,000 a year. The fact is, the island is better off now than ever it was; there is now absolute equality between religions and classes, even-handed justice, peace and security; the people are not subject to Armenian or even Cyprian outrages, and all this constitutes a change which they are a little apt to forget. The hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that the island should be handed over to the Greeks. I have no doubt that in some respects that would appeal tothe sentiments of the Grecian population in the island; but I. have no reason to believe that the Mahomedans in the island, who are equally worthy of our good-will and care, would at all like any such transfer. I am not certain that even the Greeks themselves would, considering the financial disabilities under which they would immediately be placed, feel that these would be compensated for by sentimental considerations. The amount of the tribute payable by the Cypriotes to Turkey was settled by a Commission, of which Sir Robert Biddulph, who went to Constantinople for the purpose, was the head. The whole question was examined and criticised again and again. It is not the fact, as my hon. friend appears to have been informed, that the calculations for the tribute were based upon the paper currency, which, having depreciated 60 per cent., no longer represented the real value of the tribute. On the contrary, account was taken of that depreciation, and only the intrinsic value of the currency was reckoned in settling the tribute. Sir Robert Biddulph was unable to convince the Turks that they should reduce their claims; and a final settlements made by the British Government without the consent of Turkey. It was the British Government which decided that the present sum fairly and reasonably represented the annual tribute which had actually been paid by the island for five years or more previous to the British occupation. It may be alleged that Sir Robert Biddulph did badly, and that his views were wrong, and that his calculations were mistaken, but I do not think that Her Majesty's Government could listen to such representations. There is no proof of them whatever, and it is known that Sir Robert engaged in the work with every desire, as was natural, to reduce the tribute to the lowest point, because he then knew well, what has since turned out to be the fact, that if the tribute was placed at a high amount the British Government would in the long run be mulcted for a considerable proportion of it. The net result is, not only that the Cypriotes have to pay not more than they paid before, but that during the twenty years of the occupation they have been relieved of a portion of their obligation, averaging about £30,000 a year, at the expense of the British taxpayer. I need not say that the rumour to the effect that the amount of the tribute had any reference to the amount of the loan which had been hypothecated is utterly and entirely without the shadow of a shade of foundation. The fact is, that all the revenues of the island were hypothecated for the loan of 1855. No doubt the result of the hypothecation has been, I will not say a pecuniary advantage to France, for I have no doubt France would have been able to get the interest on the loan from other sources, but an immense advantage in the sense that it has relieved her from all trouble and anxiety; because France has always obtained the money by cheque from the British Government, without having to exert pressure on the Turk. My hon. friends ask whether any arrangement is likely to be made for the reduction of the tribute. I have very little to say on that point, but one thing I must say in order to prevent any false anticipations. We might be able to reduce the tribute; but if we did so, it would not benefit the Cypriotes, immediately, at any rate, but only the British taxpayer. Whatever reduction was secured would have to be set against the British grant in aid, which was this year £30,000. Therefore, although I am anxious to see this tribute reduced, the Cypriotes are not likely for a long time to get the benefit of a reduction.

Cannot it be capitalised and paid off profitably?

The debt might be paid off by a loan at a lower rate of interest, and there would be a saving to that extent. Efforts have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Office to come to some arrangement with the Sultan in regard to this loan, and some considerable progress has been made in that direction. But the negotiations are not concluded; and I cannot say at the present time that a satisfactory agreement has been obtained. But I still hope that some transactions of the kind may be arranged, though I think it necessary to warn the inhabitants of the island that in the first instance, at any rate, the British taxpayer, and not they, would benefit.

said it could not be denied that the condition of Cyprus had improved very substantially during the last two or three years under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. At the same time, he confessed to a certain sense of disappointment at the announcement that had just been made, that the people of the island had nothing to expect from the increase in the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman, and those who took the same view, seemed to overlook altogether the political considerations of the case. This country took Cyprus under the impression that they were getting a great political advantage, and it was boasted of as a great stroke of policy. It was then represented to the Cypriotes that they had come into the possession of a great and wealthy Empire, and that it was the intention of the English Government to maintain, as in Malta, a large number of troops there. Of course, if that policy had been pursued there would never have arisen the slightest difficulty among the Cypriotes in paying their way. But for a long time the island was completely neglected, and nothing was done to improve the condition of the people, who were left entirely to their own resources. He fully admitted that, since the administration of the Secretary to the Colonies, a new leaf had been turned over in this regard, with the result that the revenue had immediately begun to rise. But there was a long time during which the complaints of the islanders met with no response, and they were subjected to an enormous and undue burden of taxation. He therefore thought it was ungenerous to propose, immediately there was a gleam of prosperity in Cyprus, that there should be a reduction in the grant in aid. He hoped the Colonial Secretary would come to recognise that the people of the island had at least a moral claim to a share in the increase in the revenue.

I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, three questions. It has been very strongly rumoured lately that the companies subsidised in this Vote are making of themselves an alternative route to the Cape, in order to anticipate possible competition. Two of the agreements which govern these subsidies expire this year, but they have already been extended in a new form by other agreements which were made a few years ago, and which will begin to run before we have this Vote again next year. I should like also to know whether the Government can give similar information to that contained in the White Book, which has been laid before the Cape Parliament, on the subject of the working of the lines subsidised in this Vote, of the proposal for an alternative line to the Cape, and of the opinions of the Home Government as to the strategic importance of the proposed line. It is now admitted that the enormous increase of trade in South Africa in recent years has made these subsidies wholly unnecessary, and this will have a considerable bearing, of course, on any future arrangements we have to make. I should also like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us anything about the recent delays in Government messages from the Cape.

There have been proposals under the consideration of the Government from the telegraphic companies for a new cable between this country and the Cape, touching at St. Helena and Ascension. Negotiations have also been in progress for a considerable reduction in rates. I cannot say how far the matter has approached completion. I think the time is hardly ripe for laying Papers on the subject before Parliament, but there are proposals before us, and it is quite true that considerable strategic importance is attached by the Admiralty to the proposed communication. With regard to the alleged delay in transmitting messages from the Cape, I really know nothing at all about it.

I raised a question on this Vote last year, which the Secretary to the Treasury said he would bring to the knowledge of the officials, viz., the extraordinary carelessness shown in regard to the names in the Ordnance Survey. These names are of great antiquarian interest, and often have important historical bearings; but even in the Crown forests some of the official names are spelt differently. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether this can be rectified.

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that this Vote is not out of the Treasury, but out of the Board of Agriculture. I will bring the matter before my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.