I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many Roman Catholic boys and how many of all other denominations have been received into the Royal Navy during the last twelve months from the "Arethusa" and "Chichester" training ships.

The Admiralty have no information with regard to the points referred to in the hon. Member's Question. It is possible that he may be able to obtain the particulars from the "Arethusa" and "Chichester."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position of affairs in reference to the Russian concession at Tientsin; whether the Russian Government are in occupation of any territory near the railway station or goods yard; whether the private owners are in occupation of the mining companies' yard, of the yards and junk wharves of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, and Jardine, and W. Forbes, as well as of the light tramway line, and who is in occupation of the military college; and will he state what steps are being taken to clear up the situation.

The Russian Government do not propose that the property of foreign owners should be included in their concession. With regard the ownership of the land claimed by the railway included in the Russian concession, arbitration is proceeding. The goods yard was, we understand, entirely evacuated by the Russians in July, 1901, but we have no further information as to that part of the right hon. Baronet's Question. The private owners are in occupation of the mining campanies' yard, of the yard and junk wharves of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, Jardine, and W. Forbes. The light tramway was bought out by the German Expeditionary Force, and is used by the German military authorities for transport, stores, &c. The Russian authorities are in occupation of the Military Collage. In answer to the last Question, his Majesty's Government await the result of the arbitration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if there are any restrictions placed by His Majesty's Government upon the emigration of the natives from the British Central African protectorate and Uganda to the new South African Colonies; and, if so, if the Government will take steps to remove these restrictions.

Under the regulations of British Central Africa and Uganda no recruiting of labour may take place without the permission of His Majesty's Commissioner. There are other provisions in the labour regulations enacted for the protection of the natives. Hitherto, labour recruiting in these Protectorates for South Africa has not been permitted, but the subject is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the treaty of 29th March, 1864, between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Greece, whereby the Ionian Islands were ceded to Greece, and by the vote of the Ionian Assembly forming one of the bases of that treaty, the right of pro- perty in the English cemeteries in the Ionian States was confirmed to the Government of the her Britannic majesty; whether the Greek authorities now propose to lease, or have leased, the English cemetery in Corfu to a Franco-Belgian company for the purpose of erecting therein a casino; whether the consent of His Majesty's Government has been asked for and obtained to this transaction; and what steps His Majesty's Government has been asked for and obtained to this transaction; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent the desecration of the graves of the distinguished British civil and military officers and other British subjects buried in this cemetery.

With regard to the first part of the Question, it is the case that the right of property in the English cemeteries in the Ionian States was confirmed to Her Majesty's Government by the vote of the Ionian Assembly of October 12th -19th, 1863, which formed one of he bases of the Treaty of March 29th, 1864. Negotiations were, however, opened in 1891 for the transfer of the old cemeteries to the Greek authorities. No final arrangement has been arrived at, but His Majesty's Government have been careful to signify that, in the event of such a transfer, proper precautions must be taken to prevent the desecration of the cemetery. Enquiry will be made, and the whole subject will, if necessary, be reconsidered before any further proceedings are taken to complete the transfer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything new from Venezuela.

Official information has been received through diplomatic and naval channels, to the following effect:—Three Venezuelan vessels were yesterday seized by armed boats from British and German men-of-war at La Guaira, and a fourth was disabled without resistance. A Venezuelan gunboat, the "Bolivan," was also seized at Port of Spain. The two prizes taken by the German commodore have been sunk. It was reported yesterday in Caracas that all German and British subjects were being arrested. Steps were at once taken by the United States Minister, to whose care British interests have been confided, to verify the facts. The release of all British and German subjects has been demanded, but, so far as we are aware, this demand has not yet been complied with. It was reported that the British Consul at Caracas has been arrested, but it is not yet known whether such is the case. The British Vice-Consul at La Guaira, with some women and children, were taken on board British men-of-war during the night of the 9th-10th. It is stated that President Castro is holding the British and German subjects as hostages Up to the date of the last information, which appears to have left La Guaira last evening, all British subjects, though arrested, were so far unharmed.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet come to any decision as to whether he will give his assent to the proposed sale of the Tunbridge Wells Corporation telephone undertaking to the National Telephone Company; and, if not, whether he can state the cause of the delay.

After carefully considering the important questions of principle affecting the telephone system of the United Kingdom involved in the application of the Corporation of Tunbridge Wells, I decided that I could not give my assent to the proposed sale except on certain conditions which are necessary for the maintenance of the policy approved by Parliament in the Telegraph Act, 1899. The licence held by the Corporation imposed on the conduct of their telephone undertaking certain important obligations which do not apply generally to the licensed business of the National Telephone Company. The most important of these obligations are the following:—

1. That the charges for the Exchange service shall be maintained within certain specified limits.

2. That no favour or preference shall be shown in the charges made to any subscribers, and that no subscriber shall, as a condition of service, be required to grant way leaves except for the connection of his own premises with an Exchange.

3. That the construction of all plant shall be subject to the sanction and approval of the Postmaster General.

4. That the subscribers in other areas to Exchanges of the Postmaster General, and of his other licencees besides the National Telephone Company, shall have the right to free intercommunication over the trunk wire system, without the imposition of "terminal fees" with the subscribers to the Corporation system, and that subscribers to a Post Office system in the same area shall have the right of intercommunication on terms to be settled by arbitration, if necessary.

The National Telephone Company lately accepted as a condition of their licence in respect of the Tunbridge Wells area conditions 1 and 2, and thereby secured, under the operation of Section 3 of the Telegraph Act 1899, as a result of the establishment of the municipal telephone system, an extension of the period of their licence for the Tunbridge Wells area from the 31st December, 1911, to the 30th April, 1925, the date of termination of the Corporation licence. Under these circumstances I wrote to the Company on the 22nd November that I could not give my assent to the proposed sale unless they further accepted as applying in future to the whole of their system in the area the other obligations now attaching to the Corporation system, in order that all telephone business in the area might in future be conducted in accordance with the principles approved by Parliament; and I make a further very important condition. In permitting the extension of the Company's licence in local areas where municipal competition might be established, Parliament intended to place the competing systems on an equality, but it did not contemplate the enjoyment of this advantage without competition. I therefore thought it necessary to secure for the Postmaster General the right to terminate the Company's extended local licence on the 31st December, 1911, the original date of termination specified in their general licence. The Corporation licence, in order to provide for the continuance of the telephone service by the Post Office on its termination, gave the Postmaster General the right to purchase such of their plant as might, on the expiration of the Corporation's licence, be useful for Post Office purposes, on what are commonly known as "tramway terms," that is at its fair market value as plant in use. I have extended this condition to the whole plant of the National Telephone Company existing in the Tunbridge Wells area in 1911. These conditions, coupled with the terms as to rates of subscription, &c., contained in the agreement between the Corporation and the Company, secure all the advantages contemplated by Parliament in sanctioning municipal competition as affecting both existing and future subscribers, and the development of the general telephone system, and I am glad to be able to state that 1 have to-day received from the National Telephone Company an assurance that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and looking at the matter not from the point of view of Tunbridge Wells alone, but from the broader standpoint as it affects the position of the Post Office and the Company in the country generally, they are prepared to accept these conditions.

I beg to ask the postmaster General if, in view of the fact that there is no parcel post between this country and Brazil, and the importance of the trade with that country, he will endeavour to secure and extension of the parcel post system of that country.

A parcel post with Brazil was established through the agency of the Portuguese Post Office on the 1st January, 1901. The Brazilian Post Office has during may years rejected the proposals of the British Post Office for the establishment of a direct parcel post; but fresh negotiations on this subject were commenced last year, and are still proceeding.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill next session to exclude the reservoirs of Water Companies from the reduction in rateable values applicable to agricultural ponds.

The amendments of the law suggested by my hon. Friend, who has taken so much interest in this matter, is one with which my right hon. Friend had sympathy; but I cannot give any pledge as to the introduction of legislation next session for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, as representing the Woods and Forests Commissioners, if he can now state when the regulation will be issued under which the rights of the Orkney public to free fair rod fishing on the foreshores will be preserved.

I understand this Question to relate to the right to fish for salmon and sea trout on the shores of the Islands of hey, Fara, and Ryaa little. The issue of regulations is postponed until an option of purchase f the right of fishing, now held by the proprietor of the islands is exercised or allowed to lapse. The question of purchase has to be settled by Martinmas, 1903. Meanwhile the Commissioners of Woods understand that persons desiring to fish with rod have found no difficulty in getting leave form the proprietor who rents the right from the Crown.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds notice was served on Captain Pery, R.M., Gort, to remove him from Gort during the past twelve months; for what reasons did he cease to be resident magistrate in Belmullet; and when is it proposed to transfer him from Gort.

it is not and has not been proposed to transfer Captain Pery from Gort; consequently no such notice has been served upon him. He was transferred from Belmullet twelve years ago to satisfy the requirements of the public service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the drowning of two men last week at Longford, owing to the unprotected state of the Royal Canal; will he state how many persons have been drowned in the same portion of the canal during the last ten years; and whether he will consider the advisability of instituting a prosecution against the persons responsible for its present condition.

Yes, Sir; the Urban District Council has directed attention to this matter. The question whether it is practicable for the Government to take action is now engaging consideration, Seven persons have been drowned in the canal at this point during the past ten years.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the religious persuasions of the county inspector, district inspector, head constable, and resident magistrate in Clonmel, the capital of Tipperary; how many Roman Catholic magistrates have been appointed by the present lieutenant of the county; and whether any steps will be taken to equalise the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants so employed.

The officials referred to in the first part of the Question are Protestants. Of the remainder of the police force at Clonmel, twenty-three are Roman Catholics and seven Protestants. The religious proportions of the entire force in this Riding of Tipperary, according to the latest returns, are—Roman Catholics, 234; Protestants, 53. The present lieutenant of the county has appointed nine Justices of the Peace in the Clonmel district, of whom five are Roman Catholics. He will be happy to consider the names of any other eligible gentlemen of this persuasion that may be submitted to him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many persons have been arrested in Ireland during the last three months on the supposition that they were the escaped convict Lynchehann; what compensation has been paid to the persons so arrested and detained; and whether further instructions will be issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary in this case.

Two persons were arrested on suspicion. No compensation has been paid to them. The value of instructions given to the police in such cases would be discounted if announced beforehand.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to provide Ireland with a proper detective force?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works have received a complaint from the Rev. Canon O'Farrell, Ardagh,'County Longford, as to the state of the ruins of St. Mels Cathedral at Ardagh; and whether he can state what steps will be taken to preserve these ancient monuments.

Communications on the subject have been received from Canon O'Farrell, but the ruins are not vested in the Commissioners of Public Works, nor can they take any action towards vesting them except at the request of the owner. The ownership is vested in the representative Church body.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state on what grounds was Mr. John Beirne removed from the office of sub-postmaster at Hillstreet, County Roscommon, after 23 years service; and whether any refund has been made to Mr. Beirne for stamps supplied by him during the last month of the tenure of office at his own expense.

Mr. Beirne was removed from office because he had no suitable house in which to carry on Post Office business and is not likely to be able to provide one. So far as is known no payment is due to him from the Post Office.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state what period has elapsed since the last examinations were held in Dublin for Women Clerkships in the General Post Office; when it is proposed to hold a further examination; and what notice will be given to the candidates who are now preparing for it.

The last examination held at Dublin for the situation of women clerks in the General Post Office took place in October, 1901. It cannot at present be stated when it will be necessary to hold another examination, but due notice thereof will be given by the Civil Service Commissioners.

I should like to say a word of personal explanation. On December 5th I answered an unstarred Question of the hon. member for king's Lynn, who, I am very sorry to see, is not in his place. I ought to have given him private notice as to the purport of my answer. but the hon. Member asked me whether the Secretary to the Board of Trade in 1881 had in a memorandum stated that it had been decided by the highest legal authority that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sagar would be contrary to the most favoured-nation clause in existing commercial treaties, and whether the legal authority thus referred to was that of the law officers of the Crown. In answer to that i said that "we have no record of any opinion by the law officers given at that time upon the subject." I now find on further investigation that that answer was incorrect. I have no doubt myself that lord Farrer was referring to the law officers as the highest legal authority, and it is the fact that there is on record an opinion of the law officers in 1880 which is in accordance with Lord Farrer's statement.

Can we have that opinion?

No. The matter came before the House of Commons Committee sitting on the sugar question, and the opinion of the law officers was shown in confidence to the Committee. The substance of it, I imagine, can be discovered from the cross-examination pursued; but it was felt by the Foreign Office at the time—and quite rightly felt—that it would be contrary to all precedent and would be most inconvenient if the ipsissima verba of the law officers' opinion should be made a matter of public statement and public discussion. But it is the fact that Lord Farrer has accurately stated the general tenor of the law officers' opinion of that day.

In view of this fact, will tho right hon. Gentleman reconsider his objections to give a further opportunity of discussing this most important question?

I do not see the relevance between a discussion of the question as it is and the opinion given at that time.

It shows that the policy you are pursuing will be in contravention of the other commercial treaties which exist. Besides, it raises a large question.

I am not quite prepared to admit the hon. Member's contention.

Can the Prime Minister forecast the probabilities in regard to the Education Bill, and the business generally for next week?

The main business of the remaining part of the session is the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, which may or may not occupy discussion in this House. That, of course, I cannot tell. Besides that, the House has really only to finish the bnsiness now before it—the Uganda Railway Bill, the Osborne Estate Bill, and the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, about which an arrangement generally agreeable on both sides has been come to. There is no possibility that this House will be able to discuss the Lords' Amendments before Tuesday. No doubt the Bill will be down then, and I shall propose to devote the whole, or the main part, of Tuesday to dealing with them. On Friday of this week thebusiness will be the Irish Local Government Bill, and on Monday the remaining stages of the Bills I have just named.

said he would like at the outset of this discussion to say a few words upon this Vote. It was perfectly true that the time had passed when criticism could remedy anything that had happened already. The money had been spent. The extravagance was past, and some one might say that there was no great use of crying over spilt milk. But if those who spilt the milk were allowed to do so without having any observations addressed to them on their conduct, things would not be better, and might be worse. They have now had for the second or third time an extraordinary instance of miscalculation on the part of a Government Department. He did not think there had been for years past anything to parallel the want of wisdom and foresight in reagard to this railway. The estimate had been fallacious. Every time that Ministers had come and asked for further expenditure they had apologised for what had happened, and promised that things would be better, and yet, in a year or eighteen months, a fresh demand had been made. The first estimate was £3,000,000. They had now spent, including the estimate which they were asked to vote that day, £5,550,000, and the railway was being conducted at a very heavy annual loss. What excuses were being made for that extraordinary miscalculation? The first was, as he gathered from what was said by the Under Secretary, that the expense incurred in making the part of the railway near the coast, over very level and dry ground, led those who were conrolling the works to form an inadequate estimate of the rest of the line, because they argued from what was being spent on that part of the line, that the total expenditure would be somewhere within their original limits. That was an extraordinary miscalculation for anyone who knew anything of tropical countries to make. It was not merely because the coast area for about 270 miles inland was comparatively level, but also because it was comparatively dry. But everyone who knew the tropics knew that it was when they reached the highlands of the interior that the rainfall became heavy, and the first thing that should have been determined was the rainfall to be expected in the interior. The country in the interior, as the House knew, rose to a height of eight or nine thousand feet, and the great tropicall rains came up from the Indian Occan, impinged against these mountains, and fell. These torrential rains had proved ever so much more severe than was expected, and to say that the experience gained near the coast was taken as an evidence of what would happen afterwards, was to show an extraordinary want of knowledge and foresighat. They were also told by the Under Secretary that the weather experienced was most exceptional. He supposed no Member of the House had ever travelled in any country without having been told the weather was exceptional. This country had been in our hands for ten or twelve years, and the Government had had admirable opportunities of surveying it and making all these preliminary inquiries. It did seem perfectly extraordinary that they should have been taken by surprise in this way. The Under Secretary had said that they did not know the country, but why did not they know it, and why did they not have a proper survey? Could anything be imagined more short sighted than to enter upon an Undertaking which, on the most hopeful hypothesis, was bound to be most costyly, without having a proper survey? The tribes which had rendered a large part of the territory unsafe had practivally disappeared, and it would have been perfectly possible to carry out a complete survey from the shore of the lake all the way down to the coast. Why was not that done? It might have taken a little time; the commencement of the railway might have been delayed a year; but how much better it would have been in the in the long run to spend that time in preparing a survey than to embark on an undertaking of this kind with imperfect knowledge. He could not understand how, above all things, one fundamental principle had not forced itself upon the minds of those who were responsible. Why not have given the work out by contract? The Under Secretary said that he doubted whether any contractor would have undertaken such an uncertain work. Did he try? Was it properly advertised? Was every reasinable effort made to get a contractor to come in and offer? Was everything done that could have been done to relieve the Foreigh Office of responsibilities, and troubles, and uncertainties connected with such a work, and to put it into the hands of those whose business experience and professional skill enabled them properly to deal with it? If it were the case that the knowledge was so imperfect, it was surely all the more reason why time should have been spent in surveying. He could not understand why, if the Foreigh Office had to do the work itself, it should have entered upon it without the fullest knowledge of all the obstacles that had to be encountered. He could not understand how a Department like the Foreigh Office should be considered capable of turning itself into the business of a contractor and engineer and undertake a future. They had work ot this character. They had to think of the future. They had been told already that there was a heavy annnal loss in working the line. Of course that was to be expected. The Under Secretary pleaded that we were saving something in the conveyance of stores. No doubt we were, but we were not saving anthing which could be represented as a large reduction of the very heavy loss that was being experienced. What prospect was there for the future? It was said in the debate two or three ago that we did not go to Uganda for commercial objects. That, no doubt, was perfectly true. He would not go into the general reasons as to why Uganda was taken, and what sort of dominion it was likely to prove. But let him say that he could not accept the rosy views which the Under Secretary was bound to present to them. Anyone sitting on the Treasury Bench was bound to be an optimist. But was there really any reason to expect a considerable commercial development within any time that we could foresee of such a country as Uganda and the country between the Great Lake and the Sea? It was quite true that Uganga— and the same could not be said of most of the country toward the Sea—that Uganda proper, and to some extent the countries immediatley surrounding it and atretching west, were baturally rich countries. They were fertile, were not indeed healthy, but were capable of being rendered more healthy, and they could rendered more healthy, and they could produce a great variety of tropical produce. But apart from the difficulty of transporting these tropical products, there was one real and underlying diflicnlty which applied to all these tropical territories, and which those who had not been in the tropics and had not seen the native on his native steppe, very imperfectly realised. That was the difficulty of labour. The native did not want to work. Why should be work? With a very little trouble he could produce what he wanted and live contented. People in these matters were rather misled by the example of India, where they had had civilisation for thousands of years, and the people had contracted habits of steady industry. There the people were always at work, and they were able to pay for our commodities; the population was increassing fast, and there was a porportionate increase in their exports and in their demand for imports. But in Uganda we had nothing of the kind. We had a comparatively thinly populated district, and the people led an easy happy-go-lucky life. They did not want to work; they had not the habit of working. They did not want our commodities, they were satisfied with what they had got. No doubt these things would change. The solvent and assimilating influences of civilisation would in the course of a century or two completely change of a century or two completely change the character of these people, and that civilisation which we saw in the Strand would be found in Uganda. It would not be so interesting a world, but he supposed things would be so. But these things belonged to the future. The prospects of producing in Uganda sufficient to create an export trade, the prospects of a market to create an import trade, lay in the comparatively distant future. He knew that high authorities like Sir Harry Johnston entertained a high opinion of the country. He did not deny the country would improve, but would it improve itself enough for us to see our way to make this line a paying concern, and actually, as in a burst of optimism the noble Lord assured them, pay for the loan within 15 or 20 years which we were now making for the purpose of this railway.

I did not say that was my opinion, but the opinion of very much better judges than myself, and I quoted Sir Harry Johnston and Sir George Goldie.

said he was glad to see that the Foreign Office contained a man who viewed with critical scepticism these optimistic views. It was very unfortunate that we should be making all these loans; we were complicating and confusing our finance by the different colonial loans for different purposes. They disturbed the general position of the country, and people did not realise the various liabilities into which they were being led by these steps. He could not see that they could refuse this money. It was quite true, if anything was to be made of the country, they must have railways and steamboats. He would not to further into these matters. He believed the Member for Cleveland, who had been in the country, would be able to tell them something more about the causes of delay and the making of provisional lines. But he did think that without refusing to vote the money, it was their duty to have a discussion, and by debate to mark their sense of the mistakes that had been committed, and to endeavour to convey to the Foreign Office that it must not in the future undertake work of which its imperfect knowledge and defective experience render it, with all the talent it possesses for its own proper work, entirely incompetent.

said he entirely agreed with many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think that he had adequately expressed the opinion of some Members on that side of the House with regard to this railway undertaking. He did not look upon it, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently did, as one which we were forced reluctantly to carry out because we had taken the Uganda Protectorate.

I did not say anything of the kind. I merely said I would not discuss the question of the Protectorate.

said he was sorry if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly thought he spoke as if this country were, on that ground, committed to the railway. Personally, he approached the question from the point of view that these railway lines were a necessary accompaniment of our general policy. If we were going to extend our Empire we must have these railroads in order to develop the extensions. He did not think any excuse was needed for a further debate on this Resolution; indeed it was necessitated by the statement made by the noble Lord on Tuesday night. Memories of hon. Members in regard to these matters were shosrt, and he might, therefore, be forgiven if he reminded them what the position was in 1900 in regard to this scheme. The original undertaking commenced in 1893. First there was a survey for the line, and work was actually commenced under the auspices of the Foreign Office in 1895. In 1900 a very large supplementary grant was asked for, and a Bill had to be brought in in that year. There was nothing at all in the statement made by the Minister in charge of that Bill, the predecessor of the noble Lord and the present Secretary of State for War, which indicated that there was to be any further request for money beyond the mere assertion that, in winding up a large undertaking of that kind, it was quite possible that some small additional charges would have to be provided for. He was under the impression that at that time a true estimate of the total cost had to be made—such an estimate as people in private life would have been justified in expecting to be prepared by the skilful and careful men in the employment of the Government. It was not until last session, however, when they were told that the railway was approaching complection, that a hint was given that so large a sum as £600,000 more would be required. What did the noble Lord say on the preceding Tuesday night? He first stated that he had to make the demand owing partly to causes over which the Government had no control, and partly, as he frankly admitted, to mistakes which ought not to have occurred. Of course, he was prepared to agree that the work of constructing a new railway in a country not well known was an adventurous undertaking. But he found in the noble Lord's memorandum no statement of circumstances which men of skill and knowledge might not have been forewarned about. Then with regard to the admitted mistakes, it seemed to him that they ought not to allow that occasion to pass without inquiring what mistakes were made and by whom, and what had been done in regard to the persons making them. He had had considerable experience in arbitrating on disputes affecting undertakings of this nature, and he had seen that private employers were vigilant enough to deal properly with engineers and others in their service who were guilty of mistakes which landed them in losses. Had this Committee of the Foreign Office been as vigiland in dealing with those who made the mistakes, which the noble Lord admitted had been made? The noble Lord told them on Tuesday that there was not in 1900, five years after the underataking had been commenced, and When over 300 miles of the line had been made, a complete and detailed survey by means of which the quantities could be made out. Whey did not the predecessor of the noble Lord at the Foreign Office tell the House of Commons that that was the case? He could quite understand that the first survey, made in 1893, might have been very hasty, and not very carefully thought out. It was not such a survey as would be made for similar undertakings in civilised countries. There was bound to be some vagueness in it, but after 300 miles of the railway had been made it was difficult to understand how it was that the Committee of the Foreign Office allowed the then Under Secretary to come to the House for a very large Grant without telling it frankly that the surveys had not been complected in the ordinary engineering sense. Why, he would also like to know, was an estimate based upon such imperfect material placed upon the Table of the House of Commons on that occasion? They were entitled, he thought, to ask the noble Lord to seriously consider whether this Foreign Office Committee had performed its work properly. The notion that a Committee sitting in London could make a railway in Uganda in a way in which a railway ought to be made, on purely businesslike considerations, was one open to considerable criticism, but he would not go into it at that moment; he would content himself with pointing out that among the representatives of industrial constituencies, in which the very large and important concerns were carried on, there was a growing feeling of uneasiness as to the way in which our public offices were doing their practical work.

said that perhaps ho ought to correct a mistake he made on Puesday, when he said that when Colonel Gracey inspected the line he was a member of the Committee. He was now a member of the Committee; but was not a member when he inspected the line.

said that Colonel Gracey was sent out as our independent expert, and the result of his examination was a very damaging Report. He was glad that Colonel Gracey was now a member of the Committee; and he was not attacking him in the least. The part of the line which Colonel Gracey reported on adversely as regarded alignment was the easiest portion, being nearly level. There seemed to be great uncertainty about purely practical matters. Colonel Gracey reported that some of the temporary diversions went so far afield that the rail head was completed before they were. Then as to the temporary inclines, of which he had some photographs, were the to be removed?

said that of course they were temporary.

asked what was the point of making them at all. Colonel Gracey also reported that 250 miles of ballasting would have to be done, at a cost of £125,000. Why had not the question of ballasting been raised before? Either it was, or was not, necessary. If it were not necessary, he could not understand Colonel Gracey saying it was. He ventured on Tuesday to make a comparison between the Uganda Railway carried out by the Foreign Office Committee and the Beira Railway carried out by a firm of contractors. The Secretary of State for War said that the conditions were dissimilar but the right hon. Gentleman did not prove that, because there were only two degrees difference involved. The noble Lord said that the Beira Railway was the worst constructed railway in Africa. He ventured to deny that. He had made inquiries on the subject, and he thought the noble Lord would be sorry he had made that statement when he knew that the railway had been built absolutely according to specification, and that it had been passed by a Government Department. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord had been misled by the fact that during the recent war in South Africa a change in the gauge was being made. When the Yeomanry were sent to operate in the northern part of the Transvaal, he understood there were difficulties; but these difficulties were not due to the construction of the line. The line, in fact, had to be re-constructed in order to remedy a mistake on the part of the engineer in regard to the gauge, with which the contractors had nothing whatever to do. He ventured to think that before they voted this large sum of money they should be very vigilant indeed in regard to how it was going to be spent. He would not move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, but content himself with the protest he had made.

said that on a previous occasion he had asked what were the concessions which had been granted to Companies in Uganda. The noble Lord had frightened many hon. Members on that side of the House when he used on that side of the House when he used the. word "concessions." He was glad to think, from a perusal of the Paper presented to the House, that, so far, not very much harm had been done. They had a fear that if the Government began granting concessions they might have the same experience in the future as in the past. There was one concession in regard to certain pearl fisheries on the coast of the Protectorate—

Order, order: That lias nothing to do with the Vote of £600,000 for completing the Uganda Knilway, which is the question before the House.

said he would not pursue the subject further, since it would, he believed, come up under the Protectorate Vote. [Lord CiiANBORNE: Hear, hear.] In the Appendix to the Memorandum, at page 5, there was an estimate of £80,747 for surveys. Now, these surveys had been going on for a goocl many years. In fact the Memorandum stated that there had been three surveys. He should think that a great deal of the trouble the Foreign Office had had in making this railway would have been saved had they spent more money at the beginning in the survey. Before they were finished with this railway they would have to spend £10,000,000 [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Yes; next year they would have to come for a Vote of nearly a million, for orders had been given for material which was wanted to the extent of £500,000 or £600,000.

All that is taken into account in these tables.

said that on page 7 of the Memorandum it was stated that the cost to end of September, 1899, for rolling stock was £240,332, and if that was added to the value of the rolling stock under supply, it amounted to £455,707, which must be paid for next year.

thought that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The Return was divided into warious sections. The first was as to the cost for rolling stock up to September, 1899, and the next was the basis on which the original estimate was framed. If the lion. Gentleman wanted to find out the details of the new estimate, he should look a little further on at page 8.

said that the cost of rolling stock up to September,1899, was £240,332, and he thought the great bulk of that must have been paid for; but the Government must come for another estimate next year. The other day he had asked the noble Lord to give the House the terms and conditions of the commission which was paid to the Crown agents for the Colony. That question was raised two years ago, and it was promised to be gone into. Very large sums had been paid in the past to the Crown agents for the Colony as commission, and he had no doubt that they would continue to be paid. What he wanted to know was, what these Crown agents did for the very large commission which they were given. He was very glad that the House had had this discussion on this Vote. The railway was absolutely necessary, but its construction should bo conducted in a proper business manner. Any business man would look into the accounts, see what the railway was, and what it was expected to do before he year after year, regardless of an enormous number of loeo-and trucks and passenger carriages—ten times as many as would be required for years. The traffic would have to grow, or they would have to take up the rails. They all hoped that the traffic would grow, and that the railway would form an outlet for employment. But until it had grown they had no right to spend so much money on rolling stock and in making stations. He should most decidedly go to a division.

said that when this Vote was under discussion the other night he expressed the opinion that all these details, although important in themselves, were not nearly so important as the general question of the position of the enterprise as it at present stood. The railway was nearly completed; they had jot an estimate of the working expenses each year, and they could look at the prospects of the railway for the future. They had spoken of it as the Uganda railway. He ventured to say that that was a mistake, for it never touched Uganda at all. It should he called the Mombasa and Victoria Nyanza Railway. It was a great factor in our occupation of that country. The railway had become the central feature in our administration of the country. There was a saying that Egypt was the Nile; and it would be equally true to say that this railway was the British East African Protectorate. It should be remembered that the House had already this year voted £657,000 for Uganda, of which £250,000 was for the railway; and now the Government came asking for £600,000 more. The fact was that these payments would go on annually increasing. By far the most interesting figures in the Return laid on the Table of the House were those in page 4, to which he would be very glad if the noble Lord would direct his attention. There was a statement, without any comment, that the working expenses in 1900 amounted to £350,393, and in 1901 to £378,891. Just above that they had the receipts, including the general traffic and the Protectorate stores, and these amounted to £80,797, so that there was a loss 011 the working expenditure of £300,000. What he wanted to know was where did this loss in working expenditure come out of? It could not come out of the grant in aid to which he had referred; it must come out of the sum which the House was voting as capital expenditure.

Hear, hear.

said that that was a very important admission on the part of the noble Lord. It should be voted as a charge for the year, because there could be no return for these working expenses. In the table already quoted, he had sought to find some explanation of these large working expenses. In the second column on page 5, he believed, the working expenses were put down under the head of "general charges," which amounted to £484,000. That was where the loss came in. He turned to the explanation given on page 11, under the head of "general charges." That explanation was that the chief engineer had "only estimated those charges up to the date of the rails reaching Lake, surmising that after that date a large proportion of the staff would be charged to Revenue Accounts; but it had been decided that until the rails were on the permanent alignment, all must be charged to capital." So that here they found that the large loss on working expenditure was not voted for annual payment, but was charged to loan, That seemed to be extremely extravagent. It was hard to find an exact parallel in this country to the working of the Uganda Railway, but there was a line in Scotland, 438 miles long, where the expenses were £340,000 a year. There was another line in Ireland, 550 miles long, and the working expenses were £340,000. Those were instances of regular working lines upon a most expenses scale. Why should the working, expenses of this railway in Uganda be-anything like £380,000 a year? This-was a matter upon which they certainly should have a better explanation. It meant, in addition to the capital expenditure, that the British taxpayer would have to find this £300,000 a year extra, and that would make their expenses in Uganda nearly one and a half millions a year. Although part of this money had; been raised by loan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to deal with it.There had been a hint of new expenditure upon steamers on one of the lakes in connection with the railway, and he should like the noble Lord to say if that expenditure was covered by this estimate?

Not at all.

said the expenditure provided was in connection with the railway at one end, but he wished to know if further expenditure was not going to arise at the other end near Mombasa. Unless some steps were taken in this matter, he was sure that no reduction would be possible for some time to come. Allusion had already been made to the views Sir Harry Johnston had expressed in a work which had recently been published. This work gave an exceedingly interesting summary with regard to the railway and the total expenditure that might be incurred, and he agreed that the total cost of the railway would be covered by the present estimate. Before the railway was finished the total capital outlay would be about £11,500,000. Sir Harry Johnston said there had been no absolute discovery of mineral wealth, although ostriches, coffee, sugar, India rubber, tobacco, and timber were to be found, 'nit they were not produced in remunerative quantities. This was the country in which they had sunk £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 with no prospects of getting it back again. That was the question towards which this House ought to look. He had heard something about the natives stealing bolts and nuts, but they would never find them again. The policy they were pursuing in Uganda was a great question towards which hon. Members would have to turn their attention. What was to be the filial result? There was practically no population to use the railway, and the goods traffic there was infinitesimal. Sir Harry Johnston recommended that this £12,000,000 should be turned into a national debt, to be repaid by the inhabitants by instalments beginning ten years hence. He thought that would be the worst secured national debt in the world, and it would become a heavy barrier to any colonists going out there. They need not question any more the difference between Imperial ideas upon this question, for there really was no difference. He wanted their Imperialism to be shown to be a little cheaper. For this expenditure there was no return, and no possibility of any. He suggested that they should send out some practical business man, and tell him that this country could not afford a, loss of £300,000 a year upon this railway, and it must really be brought down to £200,000. This expenditure ought to be cut down in the interests of the taxpayers of this country. They could not afford to spend such a large amount of money in Uganda, and he hoped the noble Lord would satisfy the House by holding out some immediate prospect of a reduction.

said he rose to take part in the debate, not only because he had long taken an interest in the affairs of East Africa, but also because he was, he believed, the only Member of tin's House who had visited the kingdom of Uganda and had travelled on the railway throughout its length. Two questions, separate and distinct' arose upon this Vote. The first was the question whether or not this railway was necessary. The second was the question whether its construction had been carried out with a due regard to economy. As to the necessity for the construction of the railway he entertained -no doubt whatever. The railway was the inevitable consequence of annexation, and it was impossible to govern this Protectorate efficiently and cheaply without such means of communication. The journey from the coast used to take three months marching, and the cost of carrying goods was then about £200 per ton. Under those circumstances it was obvious that either the cost of government by the liritish in that Protectorate must have been very great, or else that the government would have been inefficient. The construction of this railway was inextricably bound up with the question of annexation. It was true that the annexation of Uganda was not to be justified merely on the grounds of commercial profit. The soil was for the most part very fertile, and there could be a very large trade in produce with the neighbouring countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had said that the natives were not willing to work, but that was not so, and there was at present a demand for English goods. They liked our linen goods, soap, and umbrellas, and were willing to work in order to obtain the means of purchasing the commodities by which they set store. There were many other things which could be imported, and many products which could be exported in exchange. But, on the other hand, the world's supply of tropical produce at the present time was so large that it was very likely that there would not be any remunerative trade in these products from Uganda for some time. The main reasons for the annexation were different. There were political reasons. An active party had existed in Uganda, led by the French Catholic priests, which openly advocated the annexation of the country to France. A German had actually succeeded in making a treaty, which had subsequently to be disavowed, establishing German influence there. If this country had not taken over Uganda it would have been undera foreign Power now, and a wedge would have been driven between the Soudan and British East Africa. The condition of the natives during the eight years the British flag had been flying over Uganda had vastly improved They were a highly interesting race. They were a very intelligent people, skilful handicraftsmen, eager for education. They greatly appreciated British rule. He had an opportunity of speaking to many of the native chiefs through interpreters, and they invariably volunteered statements that they were grateful for British rule, and appreciated the benefits which that rule had conferred upon them. One of them told him that now they would have no more wars, and they were only anxious to help the British Government to keep the country happy and prosperous. Before the British went there the country was the scene of continual internecine conflicts, and the kings used to be guilty of barbarous cruelties in the wanton execution of natives, as Spekc, Stanley and the missionaries had testified. The slave trade was rife, and the minor chiefs made many cruel exactions from the peasantry. All those evils had now been stopped with a firm hand. There were now many mission stations throughout che country, which were much welcomed by the people. This seemed to be the one tropical country where, in recent years, missions had been a genuine success. Schools had been established there, and there were hospitals in the various districts. [An HON. MEMBER: Are they voluntary schools'?] Yes, they were voluntary schools, and he only wished that the Government could see their way clear to make a grant to that class of voluntary schools at all events. It appeared that all those benefits counted for nothing with some hon. Members. The hon. Member for Battersea said that he would rather spend £ 10,000,000 upon a railway in Essex than £1,000 upon a railway in Uganda.

Hear, hear.

said he was sorry to find himself in conflict with the hon. Member upon this question, for he generally found himself in accordance with the views of the hon. Member upon domestic questions. It appeared to him to be a monstrous doctrine that the duties of this country were limited solely to the people of this country, and that because a man's skin was black you should not help him; because he lived in another continent you should pay him no attention. The principles of progress could not be limited merely to our own shores, and he ventured to-say that if this was to be the new humanitarianism, if these were the doctrines of modern philanthropy, if these were the new principles of sociaL reform, they had fallen oft' very greatly from the time when humanitarianism was a world-wide creed, and allowed no, distinctions of race and country. He had always held that one of the most glorious pages in the records of that House was the page on which was inscribed the Vote of £20,000,000 for the freeing of the slaves. Such expenditure as this stood on a similar footing. It was money spent for the uplifting of the backward peoples of the world. Charity ought to begin at home, no doubt, but he had yet to learn that it ought to end there. Approving of the general policy of annexation in regard to Uganda, he must therefore approve also of the construction of the railway.

I can forgive the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the criticisms which he has made against any details of the expenditure on behalf of the Uganda Railway when I consider the greater part of his speech and the complete answer which he has given to the observations of so many of his hon. friends. [An HON. MEMBER: He agreed with them.] The hon. Member for West Islington said that the district we have to deal with is inhabited by nothing but barbarians.

That was a joke.

I do not think anybody laughed at it, though. The hon. Member thinks that the country produces no commodities worthy of the attention of the merchant.

In merchantable quantity.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down corrected him in both particulars, and explained that the people of Uganda were by no means the nation of pure barbarians which he seemed to think, but that, on the contrary, they were a progressive people with a great future before them, and that the country was fertile, producing many commodities which, in time, we hope, will bring some remuneration for the expenditure to which we have been put. The hon. Member for the Cleveland Division made certain criticisms which it will be my duty to meet. He said that when he was travelling in the country he met a number of people who all agreed that there had been a great deal of waste. I do not doubt that in any enterprise of this kind a certain amount of waste must necessarily take place, but I confess I rather distrust the kind of gossip—I do not use the word in an offensive sense to the hon. Gentleman—which is picked up from various amateur critics who are not qualified to form an opinion, and to which the traveller, of course, is always subject. I distrust that all the more because some very considerable authorities do not seem to share the hon. Gentleman's opinion in that particular. I quoted on Tuesday the statement of Sir George Goldie. [An Hon. MEMBER: What about Col. Gracey's opinion?] I will deal with Col. Gracey in a moment. I will not repeat the quotation I read from Sir George Goldie, but he definitely says that the charge that the railway has been uneconomically made cannot be sustained. You may not agree with him. You may think that the railway was built on too extensive a scale. You may think that he was over sanguine in his hopes of return for the expenditure, but a man of his enormous experience has an opinion which must be taken into account.

May I ask whether he went over the latter part of the railway, of which I spoke?

I am not quite able to say.

Is Sir George Goldie a practical engineer?

I did not say he was, but I do not know that the hon. gentleman is a practical engineer either. I take Sir Harry Johnston. I am not going to repeat the quotation I gave from him the other day, but he certainly says that he thinks the appointment of Sir Guilford Molesworth and his assistants was thoroughly justified by the results which have been produced. Col. Gracey's report, to which so much attention has been called, and very properly called, does not express the view which the hon. Gentleman seems to think. If hon. Members will look at page 7 of the Report they will find a long paragraph in which he points out the immense difficulties that must necessarily belong to an enterprise of this kind. Then he goes on to say—

"I have mentioned all this lest it should be thought, from rny criticism of certain minor details, I have been unable to appreciate the excellent work that has been carried out by the staff of the Uganda Railway."

So that he does not by any means condemn the staff of the railway, root and branch, as might be supposed from some of the observations that have been made. On the contrary, he takes the view that, considering the immense difficulties which confronted them, on the whole the work which they put out is excellent [AN HON. MEMBER: He does not say that.] The hon. Member for the Cleveland division said there had been a great waste of money. A passage was pointed to in Col. Gracey's report in which he criticised the rope incline. It is abundantly true of engineers, as it is true of other men, that there are among them many different opinions, and there will be. Even within the covers of this Blue-book, hon. Members will see that the opinion given by Col. Gracey is by no means shared by others. If they turn to page 52 of this Blue-book, they will find a paragraph in which the opinion of Sir Guilford Molesworth is cited. If they look at the middle of the quotation they will see these words—

"It will be necessary, in order to insure rapid progress of the railhead, to make use of a temporary rope incline, by which the permanent way materials may be lowered pending the completion of the work on the permanent line."

What the writer of this memorandum says in the next paragraphs—i.e., that a year has been saved in the operation of carrying the rails through to the Lake, is a proof of the soundness of the decision arrived at. That is really the answer to the hon. Gentleman. The longer the line takes to make the longer will it be necessary to pay for the coolie labour imported from India. It is therefore important to get the work done as soon as possible.

Is it economical to make two lines instead of one?

I prefer to trust the opinion of those competent engineers, rather than that of the hon. Gentleman, whose opinion after all must be that of an amateur.

Whose opinion is that?

It is the opinion of Sir Guilford Molesworth, and if the hon Member for Swansea will look at page 62, he will see what is stated by him. Sir Guilford Molesworth approved of the decision of the Uganda Railway Committee to adopt the device of the rope incline. He stated that it would be necessary, in order to secure rapid progress to the rail-head, to make use of a temporary rope-incline, and by this means a year had been saved in carrying through the undertaking. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen has criticised the various reasons I put forward for the Estimate of 1900. I will not weary the House by repeating what I said the year before last, but let me make this observation. The right hon. Gentleman says, how absurd it is to talk of the weather being exceptional. I would ask, is not the weather in Uganda, always exceptional? No doubt the weather is perpetually surprising; but, at the same time, I think it must be admitted that the weather is sometimes worse than at other times. The right hon. Gentleman may deny that, but there can be no doubt that the weather that year was exceedingly bad. The more experience we have of the weather in Uganda, the more entitled we are to speak with confidence that the weather was exceptional at a period when the railway was at a critical stage; and it did make an enormous difference in the cost of the construction of the railway. In England, if navvies cannot be employed owing to the bad weather, they are discharged. That course, however, cannot be followed in Uganda. The coolies employed on the railways are imported from India, and they have to be paid whether they work or do not work. When the weather is so bad that no work can be done, the cost thrown on those who are making the railways is very great indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have put the questions, "Why did the Foreign Office hurry on the railway?" "Why did they not wait for the complete survey of the line?" It is perfectly true that they did hurry on the railway, and did not wait for a complete survey; but everyone who has taken an interest in this question knows that there was a political necessity for hurrying on. I would remind the House that there were at least two other Powers competing with Great Britain for the possession of Uganda, and it must be evident to all that the sooner we established control and our authority over that territory the better it would be for our sovereignty.

That was settled before the railway was begun.

The mere paper acquisition of a vast territory in East Africa was not sufficient; and the sooner it could be developed the better. Besides, any one who recognises the importance of having ready access to the higher waters of the Nile, in view of our Imperial position in Egypt, will acknowledge how necessary it was to have the railway rapidly completed. It was for that very reason that the Foreign Office did not wait for the survey, as they would have done under normal circumstances; and that it was which induced the Government also to take the work in hand themselves instead of employing a contractor. I ventured to say on Tuesday, and I repeat it this afternoon, that the fact that the estimate was originally too low does not mean necessarily that too much money has been spent in the end. Assuming that every estimate was exceeded, the question is not whether the estimates were good or bad, but whether too much money has been spent. The Uganda railway has been by no means so expensive as the Cape line and the Natal line. The Cape line cost pounds;10,000 per mile, and the Natal line pounds;13,000 per mile, while the Uganda line only cost pounds;9,500 per mile. The hon. Member for West Islington, who was very eloquent on the working expenses of the railway, has got hold of a mare's nest. The hon. Gentleman referred to the table on page 4 of the Memorandum, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood it. The figure he took was pounds;378,000 as the working expenses of the line in 1901, and he asked how that money was to be defrayed. It will be defrayed out of the very grant which the House is now being asked to vote. It is in its bulk part of the capital expenditure on the railway.

Why is it called "Working expenditure"?

It represents, in it its major part, the cost of bringing material up from the coast to rail head; and if the hon. Gentleman will read carefully the recent account of how this excessive expenditure arose, he will see that in almost every item a large part of the excess is due to what it cost to take the material from the coast to rail head. The traffic earnings amounted to pounds;80,000 last year. With regard to the working expenses, it is calculated that the net loss will be pounds;78,000 a year. But, of course, as the Protectorate develops, and trade and commerce increase, we have no doubt that the margin of loss will be a gradually diminishing quantity.

said there was a great ambiguity about the tables. The difficulty was that no distinction was drawn between the cost of carriage of railway stores and the cost of carriage of Protectorate stores.

The first table excludes the carriage of Protectorate stores and railway construction stores; while the second table includes the carriage of Protectorate stores, but excludes the carriage of railway stores. The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to explain in the cost of the earthworks. Well, in the first place there was an under estimate, because of the want of a detailed survey, of which I have already spoken; and, in the second place, the bad weather, which stopped progress, was responsible for almost half of the cost. The cost of the bad weather per unit involved an under-estimate of 20 per cent, on the earth-works alone. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the permanent way. As regards that, the rise in the prices of material and freight from England accounted for pounds;16,000; the replacement of wooden sleepers by steel sleepers over the first eighty miles, pounds;17,000; and the rise in the price of coal and in the cost of carriage from the coast, pounds;35,000. There was also a small increase in the length of deviations, and a certain under-estimate of the cost of taking up deviations, making a total excess of £73,000. In conclusion I will only say that I am perfectly confident that in any work of the kind blunders would necessarily be made; and I will go so far to admit that the probability is that there would be a certain amount of waste involved. That is not new to the House of Commons. Let the House consider, for instance, the Manchester Ship Canal. I used to be a Lancashire Member. And I know a great deal about it. Why, the under-estimate for the Uganda Railway is incomparable with the under-estimate for the Manchester Ship Canal. It is our universal experience, whether in our public or private capacity, that engineering works are always under-estimating. On the contrary, I much regretted it; but as I explained on Tuesday, although there were circumstances over which the Government or the engineers had had no control which were responsible for a large part of the excess, yet, I do think that the under-estimate in certain important particulars cannot be defended in that way. Mistakes were undoubtedly made, and on behalf of the Government I regret them. I hope the House, after listening to the eloquent defence of this enterprise by the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division, will be good enough to grant the money we now asked for, and enable the Bill to be introduced.

said he wished to make it quite clear that the original cost of the Cape and Natal Railways was pounds;7,000 per mile, and that if the noble Lord mentioned pounds;13,000 a mile the margin must have been spread over the several years since the line was constructed. On the same calculation, the cost of the Uganda line would amount to pounds;18,000 or pounds;19,000 per mile. He had always been in favour of the Uganda Railway. He thought when they annexed large provinces in Africa, in any shape or form, the sooner they joined point to point, as the Russians did in the East, the better. When he was in Rhodesia ten or eleven years ago he considered that the country was a barren and use less acquisition. Now it had 1,400 miles of railway, along which townships had sprung up; and in Fort Salisbury there was a population of some 2,000 white men. Personally, he would never hesitate to vote money for the construction of a railway in any province that might be annexed. For instance, he was in Khartoum this year. What was the result of the railway? Why, in the bazaars of Omdurman, Birmingham and Manchester goods were being sold. Though he believed the railway would pay in course of time, he thought it was open to legitimate criticism that the expenditure on the Uganda Railway was so heavy and extravagant. That made it very difficult for them on that side to support their votes before their constituents; but if a division were taken he intended to support the Government.

said the noble Lord had not met the gravamen of the charge against the Government, and had made no case whatever against the excessive expenditure on the Uganda Railway. From 1892 to 1895 he did what he could, in a humble way, to try to press on the Liberal Government of the day the necessity of proceeding with the railway, on the ground that the French were endeavouring to secure an interest in Uganda which ought to be secured for the Empire. The Germans were then entering into an arrangement to construct a railway from their sphere of influence, and he thought it advisable that the Government should also construct a railway in their sphere of influence. The railway was advocated mainly on humanitarian considerations. The district between the coast and Uganda was alive with slave caravans, and the construction of the railway had prevented enormous mortality. Not only did it destroy the slave trade in the interior, but it saved a vast amount of life in connection with the transit of commodities from the coast. It used to take between two and three years for transit from Mombasa and back. Natives had to carry 70 Ibs. on their heads over the 1,200 miles there and back; and only one in eight returned alive to the coast. It was to the credit of the Empire that it faced that situation, and acknowledged its responsibility. When Africa was apportioned they took upon themselves certain responsibilities towards the natives, and the railway was the result. As regarded the question of expenditure, it seemed to him absurd for the noble Lord to contend that there was any justification for pressing on the railway in recent years; and nothing that the noble Lord had said justified the excessive expenditure which they condemned. There was an allusion in the memorandum to pounds;379,000 as being the gross working expenditure. To the ordinary individual that would appear to be a most extravagant expenditure, taking into consideration that there was only one passenger train a week from the coast to the Lakes, and only two passenger trains to Nairobi. That appeared to him to be a matter which required looking into. The officials no doubt desired to have as much money as possible to spend; but the House of Commons was the trustee for the British taxpayer, and should see that there was no extravagant expenditure. They thought that the Government was responsible for a good deal of the extravagance that had occurred; and they denounced it, though many of them agreed as to the desirability of constructing the railway.

said the noble Lord was not to blame personally, nor was he responsible departmentally, for the sad and lamentable revelations made on the Opposition side of the House, which were supported by quotations from various reports, and strikingly confirmed by the only hon. Member who had happened to pay a flying visit to the country. But the noble Lord was politically responsible for the pounds;600,000 the House was going to vote. He was responsible for the many blunders he had himself admitted to have taken place, and he would be responsible for many more unless he was prepared to boldly face the situation revealed in the discussion and to set his house in order, and either bring home or dismiss any official who in the future carried on the administration of the Protectorate in the same wasteful, extravagant, and unbusinesslike way. If the noble Lord had couched the whole of his speech as he did the concluding sentences of it, he would have been perfectly content; but while the noble Lord admitted blunders, and admitted waste, which he curiously said was not new to the House of Commons—

said that what he intended to say was that gross under-estimating was not new to the House of Commons.

said that the noble Lord admitted blunders, waste, and excessive expenditure over estimates; but the country was determined that it should be the duty of every Member of the House of Commons to take greater notice of expenditure, especially in those Parts of the world where criticism was necessary both in the interests of efficiency and economy. The noble Lord expressed some modified regret at the blunders which had taken place, but he had not said a word about the future. He gave no promise of reform, and no suggestion that the experience of the past would induce him to keep a tighter hand on his officers, especially in the dark and outlying places of the earth. The railway was originally intended to cost three millions, and to this date it had cost nearly six. That was an excess of expenditure over the estimate the noble Lord was responsible for now. In the completion and the future administration of the railway, the noble Lord ought to keep to the closest line of the estimates. If he did not promise reform in these matters, what reason had the House to assume that the absence of the sense of responsibility on the part of his officers out in Uganda would not continue in the future? What reason had they to believe that his officers at the outposts would change their course of action, if they knew that Ministers here were prepared to back them up and defend them at all hazards? What guarantee had they that the expenditure would not go on as extravagantly in the future as it had done in the past? He did appeal to the noble Lord to make some promise that, if not this session, next session, when this question came before the House, he would do his very best to see that this railway was economically finished and satisfactorily worked, and that the whole administration would be put on better lines. He was intensity amused at the deft way in which the noble Lord tried to balance the hon. Member for the Cleaveland Division and other Members with whom that hon. Member was not agreed, in every particular as to the extravagant and wastefull way in which this railway had been built and the administration was carried on

Not at all.

said he never heard more damaging criticism made about the work of a railway and the conduct of a Protectorate than the hon. Member for Cleveland made, verified as he was by personal observation.

I did not say anything about the administration of the Protectorate.

said he would deal with that later on. This balancing of one set of opinions against another in this House had been tried before. Admitting that there might be some differences of opinion between the hon. Member for Cleveland and some other Members, they were in substantial agreement as to the way in which this railway had been made. The noble Lord was prepared to accept the hon. Member's difference from his colleagues on this side of the House on a small matter, but when it was necessary to throw over the hon. Member in regard to a material particular, he talked about the tales of gossip which were told to travellers. It was perfectly true that the hon. Member for Cleveland must have had tales told to him. But the facts disclosed in the Blue-book showed what the administration of the Protectorate had been, and it should be remembered that it was not the interest of any official to put the worst side out. Very frequently striking defects were covered over by officials with the charity which covers a multitude of sins. He ventured to say that if the noble Lord would look at his own Blue-book, and read, in addition to the views of Sir George Goldie and Sir Guilford Molesworth, the statements contained in the Report of Colonel Gracey, he would be able to correct his own opinion. Above all, if he would read the literature published by competent men on the question of opening up South Africa, even Sir Harry Johnston, Sir George Goldie, Sir Guilford Molesworth, and make allowance for the optimism which travellers indulged in, especially when they were of the Stanley type, he would find underlying all this optimism that there was a tragic story to be told with regard to the making of that railway and the present administration thereof. The hon. Member declined to accept Sir George Goldie's view of the situation at all. For years Sir George Goldie was his employer. He had nothing but praise and admiration for him as a gentleman, and he had no fault to find with him as a business man, but he would no more think of taking his opinion on the construction of a railway, the repairing of a ship, the engagement of coolies, the formation of an embankment or an escarpment, or anything of that kind, than he would think of taking the noble Lord's opinion on golf or cricket. The noble Lord would pardon him if he was rather persistent on this particular subject. He happened to know a good many of the men who had been out there. Speaking broadly and generally, they all came to the same conclusion as to the expense of the Uganda railway.

The hon. Member ought to give the total number of labourers employed. The death-rate is 11 per 1,000.

said 11 per 1,000 was too much. It was an awful death-rate, and it could have been avoided if proper precautions had been taken. The Reports of our own Foreign Office gave unmistakable evidence of the deadliness of the climate, while the Reports of the German Foreign Office showed that bubonic plague was indigenous to Uganda, and decimated the population. When, therefore, it was said that there was a probability of Europeans colonising there, all he could say was that any Englishman who attempted to do so ought to be sent either to a lunatic asylum or to a home for inebriates. He had not criticised this branch of foreign affairs because he thought the reason for going to the Lake could be revised; they could not undo that policy, but they could modify it in important details. Had we not almost enough territory wherewith to occupy our attention, politically, industrially, and commercially? This Uganda policy was a link in the long chain of rash, costly, deadly Imperialism that involved this country in the most costly war of modern times. He believed in Imperialism of the old-fashioned type—the establishment of coast trading stations and commerce extended by winning the confidence of natives by fair dealing. Results should impress the Government with the folly of these schemes for extension of Empire. Unless the Foreign Office was seriously impressed by the criticisms which had been delivered in the light of sound information, this expenditure of these six millions would double, and, finally. the only asset would be two long rusty steel ribbons stretching from Mombasa to Victoria Nyanza abandoned in despair because our policy of universal grab had landed us in trouble nearer home. Our rivals were delighted to encourage us on these mad-cap expeditions, because in them we lost men and wasted money; but some day when we had to wrestle with the beasts in the European Ephesus, weakened in our outposts and dependent on alien troops, we should want the money and men that have been squandered by this Uganda policy.

moved an Amendment providing that for the purpose of forming "a reserve" of the Militia and Yeomanry the Secretary of State might relax or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry as they applied to men in the Reserve divisions. He said that his object was to get rid of the word "divisions," so as to constitute "a reserve" simply. It was difficult to understand what the word "divisions" in the Clause meant.

said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding on this point. It was absolutely necessary to have the word "divisions" in the Bill. There was already a Militia reserve, but as at present constituted it was a reserve of the Army; and if it was stated in the Bill that the object was to form "a reserve" the Committee would come into conflict with the present Militia Act. The provision had been drafted in this way so as not to be confused with the Militia reserve under the Army Act of 1882.

said there was a great deal to be said against the word "divisions," but the difficulty of the Secretary of State would be met by the use of the word "reserves" instead of "reserve." This was an entirely new kind of drafting, and he understood its effect would be that the reserve when formed would be divided into (a) (b) (c) and so on, as was the Army Reserve. In that way the very thing which had been condemned would be retained. It made one suspect that the War Office desired to do something other than was openly stated.

wanted an assurance that the Militia reserve would not be taken from the ranks of the combatant battalions. The term "reserve" was practically a misnomer as applied to our Army, because we had not a reserve in the real sense of forming a second line of defence. We had a number of men who went on furlough from the ranks of the combatant battalions, and these men deteriorated every year, and had to be re-trained for any practical military purpose in time of war. The only way out of the difficulty was to go back to the long service system. A large reserve was contrary to the feeling both of the civil and military sections of the country. He was, however, particularly anxious that nothing should be done under the term "reserve" by which the efficiency of the battalion would be impaired.

said there was a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, and the Committee ought not to give to the Secretary of State more than was absolutely necessary.

moved an Amendment to make the Clause deal with the formation of "reserves" instead of "reserve divisions" of Militia and Yeomanry. The Amendment was, he thought, perfectly harmless, so far as the Secretary of State was concerned, but it would get rid of the word "divisions" of which they were rather afraid. Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'reserve divisions,' and insert the word 'reserves.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

said it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It was needful to draw a distinction between the new reserve, which would be a real Militia reserve, and the existing Militia reserve, which was in the nature of an Army reserve. According to legal advice, the word "divisions" was necessary.

said he could not withdraw the Amendment. Now that the Secretary of State had given the authority on which he relied, he (the hon. Member) felt more convinced than ever that he was right in the view he took.

asked for an explanation of the word "division" in the Bill. "Division" was a military term, and a "division" in the Army was composed of two or more brigades.

said it was absolutely necessary to retain the word. "Section" also was a military term. Words with a military significance were frequently used in their ordinary sense in Acts of Parliament, and everybody knew what a division was as between one class of individuals and another.

pointed out that the word "reserves" would not stand alone, but

failed to see why the word "divisions" was needed, because the Secretary of State had taken power to set a side any enactment with regard to the training of the Militia. He could split the force up into brigades, sections, or divisions, just as he liked. Why, therefore, should he limit himself by this Clause, when he was unrestricted by Act of Parliament?

said that the old Militia,'reserve which was liable to serve abroad was gradually dying out. While it was dying out this particular word was intended, as he understood the meaning of it, to distinguish between the present Militia reserve and that moribund Militia reserve.

It is solely to distinguish them.

and moved to omit from the Clause the word "regulations" and insert "by Order in Council," the explanation being that the Bill gave the Secretary of State power by his own regulation to alter an Act of Parliament, whereas he held that that ought only to be done by Order in Council. There was great objection to allowing the Secretary of State by simple Regulation to alter an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the procedure by Order in Council as rather cumbrous, but he did not hear anything from him to show that the power which the Clause was to confer could not be obtained equally well by Order in Council.

hoped that the Secretary of State for 'War would be able to accept the Amendment. It was practically conceded that he should have the power proposed to bo given by the Clause, and it was a mere matter of machinery how it was to be given. It was unusual to give the Secretary of one of the Departments power to set aside any enactment. Such a proceeding should only take place on the corporate responsibility of the Cabinet, and the constitutional method of carrying it into effect was by Order in Council.

said he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill had been before the House for some weeks, but the Amendment had been sprung upon him at a moment's notice. The words "Secretary of State" already stood part of the Clause, and consequently it was impossible to put in "by Order in Council." The Militia Act was full of instances in which the Secretary of State made regulations in pursuance of certain sections of the Militia Act. All the Secretary of State could do under this Bill was to make regulations relaxing or dispensing with any enactments relating to the training of the Militia. It was desirable that that should be done by Regulation, and not by Order in Council. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, if the Amendment could not be accepted, the right hon. Gentleman would promise to look into the matter and make a statement on the Report stage. Whatever was to be done in the way of forming reserve divisions of the Militia, it would have to be done bv classes, and these different classes would have to be dealt with in different ways. He thought that the Regulations could be made just as well by an Order in Council as by the War Office.

said he wished to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry," in order to insert "the enactments specified in the schedule of this Act." His object was to make the Bill less vague. As it stood, the Clause gave an unlimited power to the Secretary for War of doing a way withe the funcion and privileges of this House. His Amendment would rectify that, by compelling the right hon. Gentleman to specify definitely the enactment which he proposed to curtail by the Bill. The Bill had been drawn in an extraordinarily slovenly way.

said he could not accept the Amendment, as the only enactments affected were enactments relating to the period and the method of training, and there was no necessity to set out their titles in the schedule.

said that the powers for which the Secretary for War was seeking should not extend to future Acts of Parliament. He therefore suggested the insertion, after the world "enactment." of the words "any existing Act of Parliament."

said he would withdraw his Amendment, and move that suggested by the hon. Member for MidLanark.

said he had no objection to the insertion of these words.

Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn, and the words suggested by MR. CALDWELL were inserted.

moved to leave out from "and", in line 9, to the end of the Clause. He moved this Amendment in order to bring back the Bill to what was the original intention of the Secretary for War at the beginning of the session, when that right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to create a Militia Reserve. He contended that the Committee was quite unable to discuss a measure of this far-reaching description without further information being given to them. He had already complained of the refusal of the Secretary for War to give any information in regard to the strength of the First and Second Army Corps, and the reasons put forward by that information were childish in the extreme.

said he not see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were applicable to the Amendment which he had proposed.

said he had ventured to make the remark because they had scarcely been able to discuss military matters this session. He would not, however, pursue the point. The powers proposed to be given by the Clause as it stood would constitute a complete revolution of the old constitutional force of the Militia, and would most seriously interfere with the recruiting. As regarded the Yeomanry, this was a proposition on which the committee had no information whatever. He hoped that the Secretary for War would agree to postpone his demand for these fresh powers until next session, when the House and the country would be more fully aware of the full effect of what the right hon. Gentleman actually proposed.

said that he had not the slightest desire to transfer men from one regiment to another, unless it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the public service. But there would be a number of men who had served in various Line battalions who would be eligible to serve in the Militia Reserve in case it was called out, that one battalion might contain 2, 000 men, and another only 600 men, and all that was contemplated by the Clause was to enable the military authorities to bring up the deficient battalion to its proper strength by transferring to it men from the over-manned battalion. The military authorities must have the power, on occasions of emergency, of placing men where they were most needed. In the case of the Yeomanry regiments, which were also very unequal, the enrolment of these men would remain with the commanding officer. He did not think that any patriotic officer would complain if, in a moment of national emergency, a hundred men were transferred from his regiment to another which was a hundred men short.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was to be understood as saying that the enrolment of the Yeomanry Reserve was to be left entirely to the discretion of the commanding officer. If that were so, he had nothing more to say. But if there was to be an enrolment of the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee what the Reserve was for, what it was to do, whether it was to go out, and, if so, fur how long, for annual training, and if it was or was not to receive pay. Generally, the Committee ought to be given fuller information as to the objects of the right hon. Gentleman.

said it appeared to him rather a painful sort of thing to remove a man from one regiment to another. Nothing could be more unsettling.

said that that would only be done in cases of emergency.

said that, in that case, his criticism fell to the ground. He did not, however, think that any system which contemplated the transference of men from one regiment to another, whether in the Militia or the Yeomanry. as a permanent part of the administration of the army, would commend itself to experienced soldiers. He hoped, therefore, the matter would be further considered before it was finally adopted. He was glad to have heard what the Secretary of State said with reference to the Reserve. He had always held that one of the great necessities of the military system was that every regiment should have its Reserve battalion, both of officers and men, regularly constituted and trained at stated periods; and he was glad that the Secretary of State had adumbrated such a very desirable military reform. If a regiment were 2,000 strong it might be divided; but the point they should keep before their minds was that men and officers who had served together with the same regiment, who were known to each other, and who trusted each other, should not be separated and sent to other regiments, but should be kept together.

said that the Secretary of State had made a most able statement as to the advisability of keeping the battalions in fairly equal numbers, but the Clause before the Committee would not do that in the least. It was only a Clause to make the Reserve battalions equal as regarded numbers. Men would not go into a strange regiment in the Reserve any more than they would go into a strange regiment with the colours. A man would know the officers and the non-commissioned officers with whom ho had served with the colours, and would wish to go into the Reserve battalion belonging to that regiment. The Clause would give the Secretary of State power to transfer men whether they liked it or not; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that the colonels would have power to refuse to enlist those men in the Yeomanry. That was quite a new thing; and he was glad to have heard the Secretary of State put it forward; but he himself heard only the other day from the commander of a Yeomanry regiment that he had no power to refuse man, as long as the regiment was below strength. Was there to be a fixed standard for the Reserve, and, if so, would the regiments be compelled to take men when they were below the standard? The regiments would have to be filled, and if the colonel could not get the men he wanted, would he be compelled to take the men that were sent to him.

was understood to dissent.

said he was very glad to hear that. He thought, however, that the Clause might be postponed until the Yeomanry part of the Bill was introduced next Session. They did not want to transfer men from one regiment to a notlier against their will; though, of course, if men consented no difficulty would arise. If they compelled men, however, Yeomanry and Militia regiments would lose their esprit de corps, which was the very thing which held them together, and which should not be destroyed because of some imaginary danger.

said he was a very strong advocate of the regimental system, but he did not think there was any reason why, if the exigencies of the service required it, men should not be transferred from one regiment to another. But he would like to press on his right hon. friend that this liability should be clearly explained to the men when they enlisted.

Hear, hear !

said that there was no plea of urgency as regarded the Bill, and if there were, it was a plea damaging to the Government. The Bill would not have

asked whether he was right in understanding that the Yeomanry Reserve was to be raised at the option of the Yeomanry colonels.

said Yeomanry colonels would have the option of accepting men for the Reserve or refusing them if thev did not consider them eligible. It was likely that some of the men who had served in South Africa would come forward for the Yeomanry Reserve, and it was his desire to obtain their services in case of mobilisation for the weaker regiments.

, on behalf of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, moved tha Amendment standing in his name.

In accordance with the pledge given I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

said he would not move the first Amendment standing in his name, as he thought the discussion he desired to raise could be raised on the second Amendment. as the House was aware, the Osborne estate belonged to her late Majesty as a private estate, and such estates were held in the same manner as if they were private estates of any subject of the realm, and her Majesty paid the rates and taxes on Osborne like any private individual, so that in considering this subject the question of Royalty was eliminated. Any precedent established by this Bill would have enormous force in subsequent dealings by Act of Parliament with regard to the disposition of the property of private individuals. By the will of her late Majesty Osborne estate was left in life-rent to the King. The life-rent interest afterwards went to the Prince of Wales, and the tenants in tail were the children of the Prince of Wales. They could deal with the life-rent interest of the King and of the Prince of Wales by consent. But there arose the question of the tenant in tail. He was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and obviously was not of an age to give consent. The King's interest was a life interest, and His Majesty had no power to settle the interest of the tenants in tail under this Bill. The life interest of His Majesty was all that ought to be pressed in a matter of this kind, and the King had a perfect right to dispose of his interest as he thought fit. He did not object to the country saddling itself with the obligation to carry out the wish of the King and to pay £3,000 or £5,000 a year in doing so; but he objected to the Government giving anything to the King that did not belong to His Majesty in full right of property. It might be urged that the Prince of Wales had given his consent. The country had always been very jealous in regard to consents where persons were under any supposed influence, and the Prince of Wales was practically under the influence of the King to such an extent that it would be impossible, even supposing that he wished it, for him to withhold his consent to the King's wish. If His Royal Highness did not do so, his position would be an intolerable one; and, therefore, ho could not look upon the consent of the Prince of Wales as a matter of full and free consent which should operate in a transaction of this kind. He thought that the Bill went too far, and that it would establish two unfortunate principles. In the first place, it would overturn the will of the late Queen Victoria, and within two years of her death it would upset the arrangement that Osborne should remain one of the private estates of the Crown. A great deal had been heard in recent debates about the sanetity of the Will of the founder. But here they were setting aside the will of the founder by Act of Parliament within two years and without any change of circumstances. Parliament was asked to pass a Bill to confiscate the rights of the tenants in tail without compensation; and if it could do this, it could as easily take away the rights of the tenants in tail of every Member of the House of Lords without compensation. It was really a very serious matter, and might form a precedent for dealing with the rights of private individuals.