§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in the Financial News of the 19th inst., in a quotation from a circular said to have been sent out by the directors 702 to the shareholders of the Royal Niger Company, that the Government bas recognized £250,000 as the sum expended by the Company in obtaining for Great Britain the Protectorate of the Niger Territories, and has given its formal assent to the levying of duties (in excess of those required for current administrative expenses) to the extent of £12,500 per annum, being interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on such £250,000; if so, whether the Government caused inquiry to be made into the items of this alleged expenditure; whether satisfactory proof was given that this sum had been spent within the territory; and, if so, whether an account of it can be laid upon the Table; whether the assumption of a Protectorate, as distinct from annexation, involves the right of levying duties, and the power of conferring that right on others within the Niger district; and when the Report of the Commissioner sent out to inquire into the state of the district may be expected?
§ * SIR. J. FERGUSSONIn answer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the hon. Member's question, the Government has recognized the sum named as having been so expended, and has given its assent to the levying of duties to the stated amount as interest on the capital. The recognition was given after a searching investigation had been made by the Crown Agents of the Colonies, who were selected as being absolutely impartial, and who certified that the expenditure was proved. The private accounts of the Commission which were examined cannot be laid on the Table. With regard to Paragraph 3, the assumption of a Protectorate does involve the right and powers specified. With regard to Paragraph 4, the Commissioner has made a preliminary Report with reference to the Oil River region and returns this week to complete his work. He could not ascend the Niger before July. It is impossible to say when his work will be finished.
§ MR. PICTONCan the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the mode in which the money has been spent? Was it spent within the territory, and upon what objects?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONIt has been shown that the money was spent by the company in making preparations for trade and the government of the country. 703 The sums, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, were legitimately laid out for that purpose, and the company are consequently entitled to reap some advantage from the expenditure.
§ MR. PICTONIs it true that the Company have been allowed to charge duties for the purpose of paying dividends to shareholders?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONNo, Sir; quite the reverse. They are entitled to charge duties for the purpose of administration.
§ MR. CONYBEAREWhat steps did the Government take to ascertain whether the sum spent has been legitimately laid out?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONI have already answered that question.