CLASS V.

HC Deb 18 September 1893 vol 17 cc1484-539

1. £213,101, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Services.

SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

would like to ask one or two questions on this Vote. He held in his hand the Report of the Ridley Commission upon Civil Establishments. That Commission made several recommendations in regard to the Foreign Office, and he should like to know how far those recommendations had been carried out. There had been some who had advised—and it was the case in some Foreign Services—that there should be an amalgamation of the Consular and Diplomatic Services, and also the Foreign Office into a single Foreign Service. The Ridley Commission did not recommend the adoption of that course; but, at the same time, they did recommend a partial amalgamation. He should like to ask his hon. Friend whether it was the intention of the Government to act any further than they had done in the past in the direction of the amalgamation of these Services? With regard to the cost of the Diplomatic Service, the Ridley Commission did not seem to see the way to any considerable economies. They did, however, suggest that with regard to some of the Embassies—especially that in France—there was probably too large a staff. If we were to compare our Diplomatic Service with that of other countries they were very similar, except in the point of the amalgamation of the Services, and he was bound to say there was no more expenditure on our part than prevailed on the part of many foreign countries, although their Diplomatic and Consular duties were less heavy than ours. Although that was so, there was some reason to think there was often kept on foot in Embassies an unnecessarily large staff. He was not one of those who would desire in any degree to cut down the expenditure of the Diplomatic or Consular Services of this country. He fancied that money properly spent would be well spent, and would be beneficial to the trading interests of this country. But that was not the same point as over-expenditure on particular points; still less was it the same as being over-staffed in certain points. Our present system was to have Ambassadors at high rates of salary. He did not at all object to that, and in posts of great trust there should be large salaries, in order to give men of fitness for the place an equal chance. But whilst these Ambassadors were paid large salaries in large Embassies, there were placed by the aide of them many juniors who had not sufficient work to do to keep them fully employed. In many cases they were paid very small salaries; in some cases none at all. They had a large number of men doing work that could be done better by a smaller but better paid and more efficient staff; and as a result of paying small or no salaries they did not get the very best work. If a man was not willing to work, practically he was not worked at all, and the effect of this system was naturally to cause great stagnation. A great number of the lower ranks were doing extremely uninteresting copying work, or drudgery, with the result that by the time they had reached an age at which they might reasonably expect promotion to important posts, very often they had become inefficient—from doing mere drudgery or no work at all—for doing work of a higher kind. He therefore asked whether any attempt had been made to carry out the suggestions in this direction of the Ridley Commission, and especially on the point of the partial amalgamation of the Services? The next point he should like to allude to concerned the care which was taken as regarded secrecy in the Embassies. Recently there had been a case where a very important disregard of secrecy in a great Embassy occurred through the action of a person who was a subject of the country in which the Embassy was situated. We paid a great deal of money for the Queen's Messenger Service, and we also paid a large staff in Embassies. There seemed to be a hiatus between the two. There were boxes sent to these Embassies by Messengers, which ultimately reached the Ambassador or Secretary himself. But sometimes these boxes had to pass through the hands of persons who were subjects of the country in which the Embassy was situated, and in these cases there was an evident risk of Despatches being opened and read, or copied, or even, in some cases—as in the case of documents which were not or the highest importance—of not reaching their destination at all. Both these things had undoubtedly occurred; and although, no doubt, in the particular case to which he alluded the man had been employed for so many years and was looked upon as trustworthy that there was a great excuse for what occurred, yet, notwithstanding, there was this serious fact—that when this man was dismissed he was found in possession of more than one of the most secret keys which existed in any of our Foreign Embassies. Although it would be out of Order on this Vote to discuss the affairs of the Niger Company, he thought it would be competent for him to ask a question as to the boundaries of the territory administered by that company, and of that which came within the sphere of the Foreign Office. The Charter of the Company had never been laid on the Table of the House, but he found from a published version that the company's territory was supposed to extend to the whole of the basin of the Niger. The view of foreign countries, however, was that the Niger Company administered the country for only 48 miles on each side of the Niger. He would be glad to hear what were the working arrangements between the Company and the Foreign Office. He also found that the expenses of the Mission of Sir Gerald Portal to Uganda were charged on this Vote. No information had been received from the Government as to their views upon the subject of the future of Uganda. Less authorised sources of information would lead to the supposition that there was some idea of extending the Zanzibar Protectorate so as to include Uganda and the whole of the territories now or recently under the control of the British East Africa Company. The Protectorates of the Oil River, or west coast, of the Zanzibar coast, and also in South Africa raised a very serious question—namely, whether these Protectorates ought to be under the control of the Foreign Office or of the Colonial Office? To his mind, the Foreign Office could not properly be charged with details of government. On that ground Lord Granville, when at the Foreign Office in 1880, got rid of the administration of Cyprus. It was very likely true that the Foreign Office could do the work more cheaply, but he thought it would be found in the long run that the system was not a cheap one. There was another point which he wished to press upon the Government, and that was that if any sums of money had to be paid as compensation to foreign subjects on account of the action of the agents of the British East Africa Company, they ought to come out of the pockets of the company and not of the British taxpayer. Captain Lugard was not a servant of the Government, but of the company; and if, in consequence of his proceedings in Uganda, expenditure was necessitated, the money ought to come out of the coffers of the company, if it had any funds, and not out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. If the administration of the country by the company was really very weak and insufficient, surely the time had arrived when the Charter should be forfeited. If this country was to be called upon to pay money as compensation to Roman Catholics on account of acts done by the company's agents, there certainly would be a strong demand for the forfeiture of the Charter. There was the case of Nyassaland, or the Central African Protectorate. It was an anomaly that, although all the territory was administered by one man—namely, Consul Johnston—yet on the north of the Zambesi he acted under the Foreign Office, and south under the Colonial Office, the result being that when Lo Bengula sent his forces north of the Zambesi their Representative had to communicate with the Foreign Office, and that when he sent them south their Representative had to communicate with the Colonial Office. The two Departments were in consequence involved in constant correspondence, and there was a certain amount of friction. In his opinion, the duties to he discharged in connection with the Protectorates should be undertaken by one Department, and not two. He should like, further, to ask whether anything was being done by the Secretary of State in the direction of limiting his own discretion in the patronage of the Consular Department? Even within the last s 15 or 20 years Consular administration had been one of jobbery—he had almost said of corruption. Money-lenders had been placed in the Consular Service in discreditable circumstances within the last 15 or 20 years, and still remained in it. He would suggest that the Secretary of State should lay down rules respecting the exercise of patronage in connection with this Service. Among the Consuls was a gentleman who had been removed from Madagascar in order to please the French. He had been removed for no other reason than because he had done his duty and had become distasteful to the French in consequence. The Consuls remaining in Madagascar had become useless in consequence of the recognition of the French Protectorate and the results that had followed it.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

said, there was one point upon which many Members of the Committee desired further information, and upon which they should have an assurance from the Government—he meant the serious responsibilities incurred in the Uganda district. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) in his general views upon this question. He did not wish to press the Government to make any statement that might be considered premature; but he thought, before the House separated, they ought to have some fresh assurances from the Government that they were thoroughly alive to the responsibilities which undoubtedly had been incurred in the region to which he alluded, and of which they could not now divest themselves. It was probable that the Government were in possession of more recent information than that contained in the Papers which had been presented to Parliament. He should like to know, for instance, the grounds upon which Sir Gerald Portal withdrew a considerable distance from Uganda and those upon which here traced his steps? The position of affairs in Uganda could not be regarded as unsatisfactory. The latest intelligence showed that their officers had been able, with the very scanty means at their disposal, to maintain British interests in the best way—namely, with the least possible sacrifice of life. Everything depended upon their policy being firm and consistent. It must not be marked by that vacillation which in former years characterised a Government composed largely of the Members of the present Administration—a policy which led to such grave disaster in Africa. If the notion should get abroad that their stay in Uganda was to be temporary, no confidence would be placed in the assurances given by their officers, and natives who were now inclined to act as their friends would hesitate long before they declared themselves to be on their side. At the beginning of the Session the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) himself declared that withdrawal from Uganda would undoubtedly be followed by local misery and disaster.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,) Northumberland, Berwick

said, what he did say at the beginning of the Session was that statements had been made to the Government to the effect that disastrous consequences would follow the withdrawal of the company, and that the Government, in the circumstances, felt bound to make inquiries with a view to ascertain whether those statements were well founded. He gave no individual opinion on the subject on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Baronet.

SIR J. FERGUSSON

said, the Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) referred to the statement as the opinion of the right hon. Baronet.

SIR E. GREY

said, this statement was that made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); it was an opinion given after reading the Lugard Report as to the real origin of the civil war in Uganda. The statement had nothing to do with regard to future action.

SIR J. FERGUSSON

said, at all events, earlier in the Session the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) recognised the responsibilities of the Government and the country, and he felt confident that the right hon. Baronet would not minimise them now. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) had expressed a strong opinion as to which of the Departments ought to take charge of and administer these Protectorates; but it must be remembered that in cases like Uganda, whose boundaries were little settled, and which touched on the territories of Foreign Powers, it was more difficult for them to be dealt with by the Colonial Office, as was the case with settled territories which touched only on other British territory, or that over which Her Majesty was suzerain. It would be premature if he were to express an opinion on the subject in connection with a region such as Uganda, where the position was as yet inchoate; but, speaking generally, he thought that the Foreign Office should take charge of territories so situated that International questions were likely to arise respecting them between England and Foreign Powers. Then with regard to the Establishment, and the opinion expressed as to the staff, he would point to the recent experience in Siam as proof of the necessity of keeping up the staff so as to be able to deal with sudden emergencies. The Committee would understand that a crisis might arise suddenly and unexpectedly, and they should always be prepared to meet a crisis if it did arise. What he had said with regard to Uganda applied to Niassa. They had only just begun to exercise their influence there; and it would be premature to declare it a Colony; but with regard to Uganda, it would be highly desirable that they should have the latest information in the possession of the Government, and an assurance that no vital change would be made until the House and the country were in possession of Sir Gerald Portal's Report.

MR. R. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said, he would not have intruded on the Committee but for the tone of the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He wished to emphasise the remarks of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to Uganda. He quite appreciated the position of the Government. The Government was at present in a state in which their judgment was suspended. He did not suppose the Report from the Commissioner was in a state to be presented to the House. At all events, it was not in a state of preparedness for discussion in the House. He would call attention to Enclosure 7, page 24. So far as the Papers were before them, they had a right to information; he presumed, when the Report was laid on the Table, the Government would be able to tell them what they intended doing. Well, the point on which, meanwhile, information was required was this—the Paper before them seemed to him to approve that there were to be Permanent Residents. This seemed to him to be going beyond the understanding arrived at. He should be glad to find that he was wrong in his suspicions, and he hoped they would soon know that there was to be no Permanent Resident or arrangement of the kind. Another point that occurred to him was that if they were to maintain any permanent connection with that place they would have a second Ireland—a large Catholic community and a considerable Protestant community, and they would have contest for mastery by both Parties. He was not going to enter upon the Irish Home Rule question on this occasion; but he wished to say that, as he was not frightened in the case of Ireland when there were two Parties of this character, he would not be frightened by the application of the same principle in Africa. He went upon broad principles, and he said that as the Government had not been afraid in relation to this matter in Ireland, they need not be alarmed in reference to this district in Africa. He was sorry to be obliged to complain of one feature in Sir Gerald Portal's action. Generally, he thought he was very favourable to that office; but he noticed that at the end of his Dispatch he went out of his way to pay compliments to Bishop Tucker, ignoring the Catholic Bishop. The absence of the Catholic Bishop's name was conspicuous. This seemed to reflect upon him, and to show a tendency or leaning towards the Protestant side, and he did not think they could approve of the idea that they were going to take up that side as a matter of course. He wished to say one word upon another point—the conduct of the British East Africa Company. This company seemed to him to have been acting in direct opposition to the terms of their Charter. He had no hesitation in saying that the evils and mischiefs that had arisen in Uganda were due to a lawless disregard of the conditions of the Charter on the part of the company, who ought to be called upon to bear the charge. The Charter required that before any Treaty could be acted upon it should have the approval of the Secretary of State; but they had acted in the most high-handed manner, disregarding the Secretary of State. In one case he believed the Treaty did not even reach the Secretary of State, much less receive his approbation. Such conduct as this was a source of the greatest trouble. He was of opinion that the Charter should be withdrawn, because as long as it remained in force the Government of this country would be in danger of being involved in the responsibility arising out of the imprudence and weakness of the company.

THE CHAIRMAN

It appears to me that the hon. Member is wandering from the question. The question of policy does not arise on this Vote, and it is impossible to discuss the conduct of the company and the administration of the Charter. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote.

MR. R. WALLACE

said, he rose mainly to deal with the Mission of Sir Gerald Portal, and he understood, as that officer was to report on the state of matters in Uganda, the question of the company and its Charter would be relevant to the point of discussion; but he really had exhausted the topic, and, therefore, there was no occasion—still less was there any desire on his part—to prolong the discussion. He hoped they would have from the Government a statement of their attitude on the whole question.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he had been a Member of the Commission which inquired into these Services, and he should be glad to get from the Representative of the Foreign Office some information as to how far the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out. The Commission had recommended that the distinction which at present existed between appointments in the Diplomatic Service and in the Foreign Office should be abolished, and that the property qualification of £400 a year in the case of the former Service should be done away with. He desired to know whether any steps had been taken to give effect to those recommendations? What he wanted to. speak about principally, however, was some information which had been given by Mr. Law, one of our two commercial attachés, to the effect that our commercial interests were not being looked after by our Ambassadors as they should be. The only attachés of this kind we at present possessed were Sir Joseph Crowe at Paris, who represented the whole of Europe with the exception of Russia, and Mr. Law at St. Petersburg; and the latter had stated before the Commis- sion it was practically impossible for him to do all the work that was thrown upon him at St. Petersburg, in the Levant, and in Persia, and he laid great stress on the necessity of there being at each of the higher Embassies some official directly responsible for commercial matters. He said that when be was away from the Embassy—which was generally the case, his duty being to travel through the different countries in his area—he had found that commercial work was not assigned to any particular individual, and he never knew whom to correspond with. This work being everybody's work, was really nobody's. The work did not receive the attention it would receive if all the commercial business were thrown into the hands of one official. We had not at our Embassies men who had commercial training or knowledge, and Mr. Law instanced the Reports that were sent home by the Secretaries of Legations as showing that in our Embassies we had no men of that kind. Some of the Reports were of such little value that the Foreign Office did not take the trouble to publish more than about half of them. That was a state of things that ought to be remedied; but as these commercial attachés had only recently been appointed, it would be well, he thought, to wait a little longer to see what use they were before we largely increased their numbers. With regard to the Consular Reports, there was not, he believed, at the Foreign Office any person who had any practical experience of Consular life. At one port in Russia—according to Mr. Law—where 300 British vessels entered in the course of the year, the Consul was only paid £10 a year. According to the same authority, our trade at Moscow was much neglected owing to the fact that we had no fitting Representative there, our Consul receiving a miserable salary, whilst the German Representative drew over £600 a year. The same state of things prevailed at Helsingfors, Revel, and Odessa. He quite agreed with what had been said to-night, and with the recommendations of the Commission, that in view of the small amount we paid our Consuls we should cut down the salaries of some of our Ambassadors. The salary which should be cut down was that of the Ambassador to Paris. The Embassy in Paris cost the country £16,000 a year, while the Russian cost £10,000, and the German £9,000. The salary of our Ambassador there was equal to the whole cost of the German Embassy. It was said that it was necessary for him to entertain a good deal; but Paris was, by reason of the way in which French society was split up into parties, just now, perhaps, the last place in the world where any Ambassador would do much good by entertaining. As had been pointed out, the men at the top of the Service were highly paid, but the lower officials were badly paid—certainly not on the same scale as the corresponding German officials. This was a matter which required some alteration. He thought it was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who had alluded to the fact that neither in ability nor in general qualities was the standard in the case of these officials up to that of other countries, nor to the standard which this country had a right to expect. That was largely due to the drudgery they had to go through in their early years in the Diplomatic Service, which disgusted them with it, and to the absence of any training which fitted them for the work they had to do in the future. The drudgery they had to do absolutely disgusted them with the profession they had taken up. With regard to Consular pensions, while there was no distinction between the Consular and Civil Service scale of pensions there was great difference between the Diplomatic and Civil Service scales. To begin with, anyone in the Diplomatic Service who was ill could draw a pension after five years, whereas in the Civil Service no one could draw it unless he had served 10 years, and the scale of pensions in the Diplomatic Service was ridiculously high. In the Civil Service a man got for every year of service l–60th of his salary, and in the Diplomatic Service it was fully double that amount. The pension of an Ambassador was based on the salary received during the past three years, and the result was that the pensions we paid to our Ambassadors were extremely high, indeed out of all proportion to Ambassadors in any Foreign Service. As to minor details, he should like to know what account was kept of the valuable plate at the British Embassies abroad? He should also like to know how the amounts for Ambassadorial expenses and "outfits" were regulated, and why the expenditure in Paris was the fixed sum of £4,000, whilst in connection with other Ambassadors it was one-third of the salary on appointment and one-sixth on transfer? The sum paid under this head in connection with the Embassy in Paris was out of all proportion to the amount paid in respect of outfit in connection with all other Embassies. He did not see why they should go out of their way to add to an item of this kind having regard to the heavy charge already imposed on the British taxpayer in connection with the Ambassador to France. He had to complain that the regulation of the Foreign Office requiring heads of Legations to send home confidential Reports as to the officials serving under them was never observed, and he wished to urge on the Government that there should be some limit to the authority of the Foreign Secretary in the selection of Consuls. The only condition at present was that a Consul on appointment should not be more than 50 years of age, but the most incompetent man might be jobbed into the most important position. It was all very well to say that a Foreign Secretary would not do this, but such things had happened in the past and might happen again. There ought to be some rule which would prevent such a thing happening. A great deal of injury was done to English trade from the fact that Consuls often knew nothing of the language of the country in which they resided. It seemed ridiculous to send men into foreign countries to discharge duties so important to England, and expect them to do so efficiently, when they were unacquainted with the very language of the countries to which they were sent. With regard to the Soudan, he was told that as the winter came on Osman Digna would be "raiding" again. A great deal of the Lancashire trade had been lost through this "raiding." We lost our customers through trade being stopped because crops were raided, and the people had nothing to buy Manchester goods with, and because in some eases the people who would have traded were killed. He thought the idea of starving out the Soudan was a ridiculous one, the sole result being that trade for England, which ought to go through Suakim went through Massowah, the only gainers being the Italians. He put aside the question of our pledges to the Soudanese. There people were told we would protect them, and they were disarmed, and then we left them to the attacks of Osman Digna and retired to S akim without giving them any protection at all. We had broken our pledges to the natives of the Soudan. And both from the point of view of honour and of trade, the present policy of starving out the Soudan ought to be abandoned. With regard to the present position of Nyassaland, he wished to know whether the country was under the authority of the Imperial Government, or under that of the British South Africa Company? There were very grave doubts on the point. To begin with, the Public Accounts Committee had had complaints brought before them of the way in which judicial fees were being expended in building a Court House at Blantyre. The British Government could get no account of the taxation, and revenue, and expenditure of that country, and there was nothing to show whether this money was being properly expended or not. Then Proclamations were issued, but it was impossible to ascertain the effect of them at the Foreign Office. This was unfair to the traders, who had a right to know the general laws of the country, so far as they were embodied in Proclamations. Mr. Albert Grey, in a letter he had addressed to The Spectator, had stated that Nyassaland was practically the property of the company, which subsidised Her Majesty's Government at the rate of £17,000 per annum; and that the expenses of the Commissioner of Nyassaland were paid by the company and not by the Imperial Government. They knew that Mr. Johnston acted as Commissioner of Her Majesty's Government in the Protectorate, and also as agent of the British South Africa Company in their sphere of influence. That was an anomalous dual position which he did not think tended to good government. He asked for a definite statement as to who was responsible for the government of this important district of Nyassaland. Was it Her Majesty's Government, or was it, as this Director of the Company said, that the British South Africa Company were subsidising the Imperial Government, finding them £17,500 a year, and paying the expenses of the Imperial Commissioner? He did not say how this ought to be, but he maintained that they ought not to play fast and loose with the matter. If Nyassaland was to be governed by the British South Africa Company, let them say so, but if it was not, it ought to be governed as an Imperial Protectorate, and we ought not to accept a subsidy.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, that the right hon. Baronet had rendered a public service by drawing attention to the Ridley Commission, and to the necessity of a closer relation between the Diplomatic and Consular Services. He was afraid it would be some time before that reform could be effected, but in the meantime he desired to point out the great importance of rendering to our Diplomatists every possible commercial assistance, in order that they might be able properly to fulfil the duties they owed to their country in connection with the commercial affairs of this country. He was bound to admit that he thought there was improvement in diplomatic circles with regard to their commercial duties; but it was capable of extension. If their position was not strengthened he had no doubt that the commercial interests of this country would greatly suffer. The number of our commercial attachés was less than it ought to be, while the areas over which their duties extended were too large and ought to be reduced. In the Diplomatic Service it was necessary for our Ambassadors in large and important negotiations to have ready at hand the assistance of some one familiar with all the commercial interests of the country. Take the case, which occurred to him at the moment, of the negotiations connected with the Commercial Treaty with Spain. That was a matter of immense moment to the trade and industries of this country. At present we were under a modusvivendi; but when the Cortes met, there might be some ratification of the proposed arrangements. He wanted to know who had been rendering, more or less permanently, assistance to our Ambassador in Madrid, and whether during the ultimate portion of the negotiations he would have that or what assistance at his command? On behalf of the Chambers of Commerce he had seen Sir Henry Drummond Wolff before he left for Spain, and he was bound to admit that that, gentle- man had entered fully into these questions; but there were many matters with which it was not possible that he should be so fully conversant as to be able to represent the wants and desires of this country adequately. He hoped the Under Secretary would be able to give an assurance to the Committee that when the Treaty was in course of revision commercial assistance would be given to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in the matter. He agreed with the hon. Member for Preston that the list of Consular remuneration required revision. A good deal more expedition, moreover, might be used in the publication of Consular Reports. These were not the days in which they could wait for commercial intelligence for a whole year with regard to foreign trading competitors, and yet he noticed that a Consular Report from Bavaria, dated "August 20th," was brought up to the end of last year. That Report was full of most important and suggestive matters—matters that had a distinct bearing on all our commercial interests. It was only a small document, covering not more than 15 pages, and yet nearly a whole year elapsed before it was made known to the country. Such a state of things should not be allowed to exist. He would suggest that the Congested Districts Board in Ireland should give most careful perusal to the Commercial Reports which had been sent by the Consul in Denmark. These Reports dealt with matters of the greatest importance to the people of this country, and they were suggestive in every possible way of that collectivism in agriculture which was all-important. He referred to creameries and the making of butter. From what he had himself seen, the collection of milk and the packing of butter at Copenhagen were admirable. If the Danish methods were observed in Ireland they would be suggestive of improvements there which would be of the greatest value. One of the chief exporters of produce from Denmark had told him that the one country which he and others feared, as a rival, in the future, if it possessed better processes of preparation, manufacture, and packing, was Ireland. As to Newfoundland, he urged, with reference to the claims of the French for compensation in the matter of the lobster factories, that equal consideration should be given to the owners of British vessels and other subjects as were given to the French, for their ships had been seized and confiscated under the forms of law, and they had been most inequitably dealt with.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he desired to support the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to Consular Reports. Two years ago he had suggested to the Government that some means should be taken to circulate the Reports and other Papers for the benefit of the public by sending them to the Public Libraries and other institutions. He believed that if these were so circulated they would be found of great value. The Vote comprised very nearly half-a-million of money, and he was afraid that there was a great deal of waste in connection with it. It struck him as extraordinary that whilst our Ambassador in the United States received only £6,000 a year our Ambassador in France received £9,000, and those in Austria and Turkey obtained £8,000 each. He should like to have some explanation of the differences in the amounts. He also desired to know why it was we had Secretaries of Legation at Coburg and Darmstadt, and a Minister in Saxony? He wanted, further, to know why certain Members of the House who happened to be lawyers had been paid for their services in reference to the Behring Sea Arbitration, whilst laymen who had attended that Arbitration had not received anything at all? If he had his way, if there was anybody who was not paid it would be the lawyers, because they already got enough of the public money. At the same time, he congratulated the Attorney General (Sir C. Russell) and the ex-Attorney General (Sir R. Webster) on the services they had rendered to the country in connection with the Arbitration. As to Uganda, he thought that money was being spent there with a view probably to annexation. He was told that the majority of the Cabinet were infected with the Jingo sentiment. Everybody knew that the Tories took an extraordinary interest in foreign affairs, the reason being that they wished to divert attention from home affairs, and to prevent necessary reforms being carried out. He noticed very often that when the Liberal Party was in power those who had seats on the Treasury Bench did not think it at all necessary that they should carry out Radical principles. That was not good enough for the Radical Party, and he should certainly like to know what was now the position of the East Africa Company with regard to Uganda? He was afraid that there was some danger of Her Majesty's Government being led into doing a great deal more than their supporters anticipated, and he trusted they would give a further assurance that they intended to keep the undertaking already given not to pledge the House or the country in any way until after Sir Gerald Portal had reported.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

desired to assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the reason why Conservative Members took a keen interest in all Consular and Diplomatic matters were not those which the hon. Member supposed. Their real reasons were that they desired to secure the promotion of British interests abroad, the security of British capital, and the extension of British commerce. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends did not sympathise with those objects, he thought they would have sooner or later to reckon with the industrial classes of this country.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, Radical Members entirely sympathised with the objects which the hon. Baronet had stated, but it was the Radical and Liberal Party that had really made the trade of this country what it was.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he would not discuss with the hon. Gentleman which Party had shown the greatest interest in the extension of foreign commerce in semi-civilised regions beyond the ocean. He wished to make some remarks on the Consular Service, with which he necessarily had a special acquaintance. He quite agreed with all that had been said regarding the extreme importance of that Service, and the importance also of its being properly organised. The Service was adorned with many officers and gentlemen who did credit to their country; and as they were not present to speak for themselves, he desired to say on their behalf, as one who knew their worth, that England was greatly indebted to her Consuls and Vice Consuls in many parts of the world. At the same time, he admitted that the Service ought to be better organised, although he was afraid the subject of organisation was more difficult than it at first sight appeared. There was already an organised group of Consuls in the China Seas for China and Japan, and he fancied that no other nation trading in those regions had a better staff of Consuls than we had. He thought it would be desirable to have one group of Consuls for the Mediterranean. He was very well acquainted with the shores of the Mediterranean, and he believed that one or two languages would carry a man pretty well all around the Mediterranean—certainly, Arabic and Italian would be sufficient for that purpose. There might also be a group for the West Indies. He had often heard complaints made of Consuls being transferred from somewhere in Asia Minor or Turkey to the West Indies. In carrying on the work of organisation a difficulty always arose with reference to the arranging a proper size for each group, and for giving the officers proper chances of promotion in their own group. With reference to Uganda, he had listened with regret—he might say with pain—to the expressions used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), and afterwards by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. R. Wallace), regarding the conduct of Captain Lugard. He thought that great reserve ought to be exercised by hon. Members in criticising our officers, who had certainly done their best for us.

MR. A. C. MORTON

He is not our officer.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, Captain Lugard was an officer of the British Army, and was employed by a great British Chartered Company. In that sense he was a British officer, and he had certainly done his best for his country.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, it had been distinctly stated over and over again that Captain Lugard was lent to the Company, and that we were in no way responsible for him.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he had not stated that we were responsible. What he had said was that Captain Lugard virtually was our officer. At all events, whether he was our officer or not, he was our countryman and a member of our Army, who had done yeoman service abroad. He thought hon. Members should maintain a careful reserve until the whole particulars were forthcoming. He was sure that Captain Lugard would come out of the ordeal of an investigation of his conduct as gold came out of the furnace. Two gentlemen opposite had spoken of compensation having possibly to be paid to some of the Roman Catholics in Uganda. He hoped that the Government would not consent to pay any compensation unless and until a proper judicial investigation had taken place. As regarded Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, it would be very interesting if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would explain what was the exact position of our Representatives in Uganda at this moment. Was it not the case that Sir Gerald Portal left Uganda, proceeded a certain distance towards his headquarters at Zanzibar, and then retraced his steps? Whilst he quite understood that no conclusion could be arrived at by the Committee until the result of the Mission was understood, and there had been an opportunity of discussing the question, he might be allowed to express a hope that the Mission would result in the establishment of the British Protectorate in Uganda. He said this partly on behalf of British commerce and of British interests generally in East Africa, and partly in the interests of the religious world, over and above all the arguments relating to the Slave Trade. The day had passed when the House of Commons could afford to ignore the wishes of the great number of our countrymen who were interested in Protestant Missions. He could assure the House that the keenest anxiety was taken in the subject, and that all those who were interested in Protestant Missions breathed a prayer that the House might be led to a wise conclusion in the matter, and that the Protectorate so long wanted might be established.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping), said, that whilst appointments had, he believed, been made from the Foreign Office to the Diplomatic Service, he was not aware that anybody had been transferred from the Diplomatic Service to the Foreign Office, although he knew that such transfers were frequently desired by members of the Diplomatic Service. He noticed that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), who was always ready to abolish everything, wished to abolish the Missions at Coburg and Darmstadt. There was no doubt that we received valuable information from Germany on commercial matters; and in view of our relations to the present Duke of Coburg, it was necessary that we should keep up our Mission in that Duchy. He believed the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) overstated the matter when he said that attachés of 10 years' standing were kept at copying work, but he believed that attachés of seven or eight years' standing, had to do that work. This rather pointed to the necessity of creating a sufficient staff of permanent officials at the Embassies for the purpose of doing clerical work of this kind. He was aware that many of our Representatives abroad were against the establishment of such a staff, but he thought the suggestion was well worth the attention of the Secretary of State.

MAJOR JONES (Carmarthen, &c.)

thought we were paying too much at one end and too little at the other of our Diplomatic and Consular Services. For a great many years we had paid more to our Representative at Washington than the President of the United States received, whilst we were not giving a penny to Her Majesty's Consular Representative at Saint Paul, which was a very important commercial centre. A short time ago, having written to one of Her Majesty's Vice Consuls for information respecting towage dues, pilotage, &c., he received a reply in which the Vice Consul said that as no allowance was made to him for postage he was compelled to post unstamped the replies to those letters in which postage had not been enclosed. He (Major Jones) contended that it was somewhat undignified to place our Representative in such a position that he had to write humiliating notes of this kind. Some little allowance ought, he submitted, to be made to our Consuls for postage, stationery, and office expenses.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

thought that everybody in the House must have agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Dilke) said with regard to our Chartered Companies. Our diplomatic relations might be strained not only with regard to the British East Africa Company, but with regard to other Chartered Companies.

THE CHAIRMAN

That subject comes under another Vote.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, he wished to refer to the Mozambique Company, with regard to which there was a Consular Vote, and with whose Suzerain State—Portugal—we had Consular relations. The Mozambique Company was established in 1889, and various Charters and rights were given to individuals in the country. Within a very short time afterwards the British South Africa Company was formed. That Company obtained from some individual, who they declared was a King, a Charter, or deed, and they then bundled all the settlers, many of whom were British subjects, out of that part of the country. These people attempted to appeal to the High Court of this country, but were told there was no jurisdiction. There was a jurisdiction at the time of Warren Hastings; and though he (Mr. Webster) was a Member of what had been described as the Jingo Party, he was ready to stand up for those who were wronged, whether they were British or Portuguese subjects. He did not wish to blame anybody for the arbitrary action of the British South Africa Company; he simply blamed the system under which we had given over our rights to a Company.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not go into the operations of the British South Africa Company. They do not come under the Vote.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, that in that case he would bring the question before the Foreign Office.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, that in view of the fact that the Diplomatic and Consular Vote had increased this year by nearly £27,000, he did not wonder that that undaunted patriot, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), had attacked it with his usual vehemence and success. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Dilke) had expressed an opinion that our Ambassadors were not too well paid. Witness after witness before the Ridley Commission avowed that they were more highly-paid than those of other countries. The standard that ought to be adopted was not what we paid here, but what other countries paid, for that was regulated by the cost of living in the particular place. One of the arguments put forward in favour of the present high salaries was that our Ambassadors had to entertain very largely. In his opinion, that was absurd. He thought it a very vulgar idea of an Ambassador that he should go abroad to dispense chicken and champagne, and he did not believe an Ambassador ever obtained any State secret or other secret by that method of procedure. With reference to the plate, he knew that the plate in the Paris Embassy alone cost this country £8,500 15s. 11d. This would indicate that we had knocking about the rest of the world something like £100,000 worth of plate. He would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this fact, so that when occasion arose the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting his hand into the Treasury Chest, might put it into the Ambassadorial Plate Chest. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) would like to see the Consuls increased, and the Ambassadors decreased, in number, and he would also like to see the Consuls better paid. He objected to the monstrous system of private letters indulged in by our Ambassadors. It had been stated that Ambassadors put their most important information into private letters, which were the property of the Secretary of State for the time being. No record whatever was kept of these letters; those received from Ambassadors were taken away from the office by the Secretary of State, and the result was that the records of the Foreign Office were absolutely falsified by them. The system was reckless, bad, and improvident, and he should have thought that a high-minded Government like the present Government, with a particularly high-minded Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would at once have taken steps to put an end to it. He complained that the methods by which correspondence was conveyed to and from the Ambassadors was such as to enable Foreign Governments to get hold of our most secret affairs. There were several foreigners employed as messengers in our Ambassadorial Service. There was one who had been in the Permanent Service, most improperly, he thought, and perhaps it was that official who had divulged the secrets referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He considered that our Ambassadorial Service was altogether too dear. In Denmark our establishment cost £4,132, while France, whose interest in the country was much greater, spent only £3,080 there. In the Netherlands we spent £4,478, and France £3,600. In Sweden the figures were—England, £4,150, and France, £2,960. Switzerland was the only country in which the cost of the French Ambassadorial Service was greater than the cost of ours, the figures being—England £1,900, and France £2,860; but, as was well-known, Switzerland was of the most terrible moment to France. He thought the cost of our Establishments might be reduced in Denmark by £1,500; in the Netherlands by £1,600; in Sweden by £1,000; and in Switzerland by £500; and we should still have our Diplomatic Service carried on excellently well in those countries. Then there were a number of small German States in which we maintained Diplomatic Establishments without the slightest necessity. Our Establishment at Bavaria cost £2,150; at Coburg, £700; at Darmstadt, £702; and at Saxony, £1,150; and yet at all those places there was absolutely no diplomatic work to be done. All those States, formed part of the German Empire; and as their foreign affairs were conducted at. Berlin, our Diplomatic Establishments were altogether unnecessary. He was surprised that the present Radical Government, which was pledged to economy, did not abolish every one of these unnecessary posts, by which they would save the country £2,550 a year. The time had arrived when our system of Embassies should be overhauled. England had given a pledge to the world that she would never fight again; and as no one now believed that there was any danger of war with England under any circumstances whatever, the action and influence of our Ambassadors was very much circumscribed. Since 1882 there had been no Report from the British Commissioner who had been sent out to secure the free navigation of the mouth of the Danube. It was time that something was done in the matter. It seemed to him that we did not want a Commissioner there at all, for he was simply set aside or bullied by Russia. What we should do was to secure the separate and independent rights of Roumania to the free navigation of the mouth of the Danube. He noticed that at Shanghai there was a Consulate General and Judge, as well as a Consul and Assistant Judge. The business had been done there for years by one Consul, and he thought one Consul was still sufficient. But, in any case, we had there an officer who discharged duties which were inconsistent with each other, for it was impossible for a man properly to be a Judge and a Consul at the same time. As Consul he was the advocate of British interests, but as Judge he ought to be entirely independent. He thought this officer should be deprived of his Consular duties and remain Judge only.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said, that he recognised the inconvenience of attempting a debate on East African affairs at such a time in the Session. But an attack had been made on the Company and on one of its officers which called for a brief reply. He did not have the advantage of hearing the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), but he did listen to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. Wallace) indulging in a ferocious attack—unsupported by a single atom of fact—on Captain Lugard, the brave officer who had done such valuable work in Uganda, almost single-handed, and under tremendous difficulties.

MR. E. WALLACE

I refrained from mentioning Captain Lugard's name. Anything I said was about the British South Africa Company.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

said, he was sorry to say he had clear in his recollection the fact that the hon. Member had referred to the Administrator of the company. The Administrator of the company was Captain Lugard, who was responsible for everything that had occurred in Uganda at the time. The hon. Member had been ruled out of Order; but he (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) found this connection between the work of Captain Lugard and the subject under discussion, that the former had paved a way for the future work which he hoped Sir Gerald Portal would do in that country in the future. The attack on Captain Lugard was based on the fact that he had not waited for the approval of the Foreign Office before taking action. He commended to everyone who was acquainted with the history of British enterprise in all parts of the world the ridiculous suggestion it was that a man engaged in carrying out an enterprise in a wild, savage country like South Africa should wait for 12 months until he got a reply from the Foreign Office, before taking action on the critical problems that hourly presented themselves. He would not, at the present time, go into the general attacks which had been made on the com- pany. He would only say that it was a matter of special regret to him to hear those attacks of unreasoning violence made by a Representative of the capital of a country which had always taken a foremost part in every enterprise for the amelioration of the savage tribes in Africa, and a country especially which had originated and had given the greatest and most valuable support to the British East Africa Company. The company claimed, and believed they could prove to the hilt, that they had expended the greater portion of their capital in doing a national work, and he was sure that that same public opinion which had thrust them forward in Uganda would, when all the circumstances were under review, declare that in pursuing their way amidst the greatest difficulties the Company had always kept clear before them the honour of British enterprise in that country.

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL (Liver pool, Kirkdale)

said, he desired to say a few words on one important matter, upon which he had had recent personal experience. This was the question of the amalgamation of their Diplomatic and Consular Services. He emphasised the fact that their Diplomatic Service in nearly all the capitals was overworked at the present moment; but there was an improvement desired with the view of getting better commercial information for the traders of this country. In appointing commercial agents, however, they must be very careful not to fall into the error of other countries, and appoint those who were, to say the least, financially interested in the concerns of the locality. They ought also to have some means instituted for a redistribution or reclassification of salaries in accordance with the growing wants or the decreasing wants of a particular post. If there were some general scheme for the redistribution of salaries at stated periods, he believed they would got more work done with greater economy. Here, as elsewhere, they were very much too apt to judge of the importance of the work done by the statement of the exports and imports of the country, whereas those who had been behind the scenes knew that equally important British interests were those of the employment of British subjects in the country, and of the investment of British capital in any particular country. He was convinced that their Diplomatic and their Consular Services were both underpaid; but, at the same time, he must acknowledge that they obtained far better work from both those Services than any other nation did.

SIR E. GREY

said, the most important point raised was that of the appointment of commercial attachés for different districts, whose business it would be to travel over those districts, ascertain their needs, and give advice as to the organisation of the commercial trade of those districts. That was an important suggestion, but he was not able to announce any decision in the matter, because the power of the Foreign Office in procuring assistance of this kind was, undoubtedly, limited by the funds placed at its disposal. The commercial work was some of the most important work to be discharged at the Foreign Office, and he was glad to say that it was receiving more and more attention. During the time he had been at the Foreign Office he had seen a growth of Commercial Reports, and the tendency was for them to grow more and more. Preliminary steps had been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission towards the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Services, and successful candidates in the examinations recently held had received certificates qualifying them for both Services. Other recommendations of the Commission, which there was no intention to evade, were going to be discussed with the Treasury, and since the date of the Report of the Commission something had been done towards the reduction of small German Legations. As to the alleged over-working of Embassies, he did not think that there was any general overwork, though, undoubtedly, the work was irregular—sometimes very heavy and sometimes light. So far as the present Government was concerned, no charge could be made against the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of having imported into the Consular Service people from outside who had no special training. The doctrine had been strictly adhered to that when a good post fell vacant it should be given to someone who had already proved his fitness by work done in the Service. With regard to trading and unpaid Consuls, he admitted that wherever there was any British shipping or trade, they should have a paid Consul, but naturally they had to make the best use of what they had, and where they found an unpaid Consul it was because it was necessary to place some limit on the expenditure devoted to the Consular Service abroad. They endeavoured to devote the expenditure to the most important places, and filled up the less important positions by unpaid men who were engaged in trade, but who were well recommended and trustworthy people. He would only say with regard to the dates of the Commercial Reports, it was sometimes true that the dates were considerably in advance of the time to which the Report referred, but that was in consequence of it frequently happening that the statistics necessary were not published sooner in foreign countries. He passed over the plate provided for the various Ambassadors, though he rather thought the hon. Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Gibson Bowles) did recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have it seized and melted down for purposes of the Mint. As to the question of private letters, that was not a matter the Committee would really expect him to deal with, as there had been no change made in the system. With regard to the larger political questions raised, he would take first the question of the Soudan. He could only repeat on that what he had stated the other day, that no doubt it was very desirable that the Soudan should be opened up to trade, but the difficulty was that past history had not made it easy to approach the people in the Soudan itself. Any means that were taken would have to depend on political considerations, and, of course, the policy of the Egyptian Government would enter into the question. As to the present state of hostilities, he hoped they would soon pass away, but he was afraid it would be a question of time. Then he took the question of Nyassaland. It was true that Her Majesty's Representative there occupied more than one position. He would answer at once what the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had said, that it was the Imperial Authority that was responsible for affairs in Nyassaland, and to the Foreign Office complaints must be addressed in regard to any matter in that district. The Chartered South Africa Company had subsidised Nyassaland to the extent of £10,000, but at the same time it did not carry with it any reversionary rights. Undoubtedly, when the late Government were dealing with this question of Nyassaland, when they determined to have a Protectorate, they were bound to ask the House for a sum of money or take advantage of the South Africa Company. Up to the present moment it remained the same. They had to choose on such questions as this either payment of a sum annually for the administration of the country, place it under a Chartered Company, or they might receive from the Chartered Company an annual sum in payment of expenses, because, somehow, the expenses had to be met. That was the plan of the late Government, and was the plan of the present Government. As to the suggestion that Nyassaland ought to be transferred to the Colonial Office, that was a question that might arise, but not just yet. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) believed it belonged so much to the Foreign Office that he had endeavoured to-night to discuss the whole question.

SIR C. W. DILKE

That was on the difficulty in Matabeleland.

SIR E. GREY

Yes; but his contention was that something which was now under the Colonial Office ought rather to be discussed on a Foreign Office Vote.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

I simply stated that wrongs had been committed against Portuguese subjects in Mozambique territory.

SIR E. GREY

said, with regard to the former points, reference was made to the arrangements that were closed before the present Government came into power. In the early stages of these African territories a great deal of the correspondence, chiefly in reference to boundaries, had to be carried on by the Foreign Office, and it was therefore convenient that for a time they should be administered by that Department.

MR. HANBURY

asked why there was no Return of the expenditure and taxation, and why it was impossible for anyone interested in Nyassaland to get information as to the proclamations?

SIR E. GREY

should have thought the information could have been obtained from the Foreign Office. He believed some new arrangement had been come to; through its being a new territory, a good deal remained to be done in the way of organisation, and this was being done by the Commissioner as fast as possible, and he informed the Foreign Office fully in the matter. Then the question of Uganda had obtained considerable attention, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) seemed to think that the present Government were using Uganda as a means of diverting attention from home matters.

MR. A. C. MORTON

I referred not to the present Government, but to the Tory Government generally.

SIR E. GREY

understood the hon. Member to say that the present Government were inclined to carry out a Jingo policy, one of the features of which was to divert attention from home affairs. He did not know that the present Government had done anything of the sort; he thought it had been very much the other way, and that the Government had not directed the attention of the House chiefly to Uganda, or any other foreign question. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. Wallace) objected to the word "Resident." It might well have had "temporary" before it, but, as a matter of fact, Sir Gerald Portal was the Resident at the time in Uganda, and the hon. Member ought not to infer from that that any step was taken to appoint a permanent Resident. If the hon. Member road the correspondence he would see that the arrangement come to was not dictated by Sir Gerald Portal, but was an arrangement that the two heads of the Mission came to; Sir Gerald Portal signed it because it was drawn up in his presence. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Lancashire was speaking on this question he (Sir E. Grey) stated he thought individual opinions had been attributed to him that he had not expressed. What he really did say was that the Government had been told by the only people who had been in Uganda or near it that the withdrawal of the company would cause serious disaster. The Government decided to send an expedition to the spot in order that those disasters might be prevented, and that a Report might be made on the best method of dealing with the country, or, if it was decided to withdraw, the best means of that withdrawal. He had never gone further than that. In the circumstances, the Government were bound to send Sir Gerald Portal's Mission; and so long as that Mission remained in the country they had a right to expect that the Government would make such arrangements that none of the disasters which were apprehended should occur. For instance, the other day four officers were sent to Uganda, but they were not sent there to take new measures, but simply in order to take over the control of the Soudanese troops, so as to guarantee the security of the country until it was decided whether it should be occupied permanently or not. That was his answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Lancashire. In reply to his hon. Friends behind him, who were anxious that they should not be committed against their wills to the permanent occupation of Uganda, all he could say was that Sir Gerald Portal had stated that in taking over the Soudanese troops in that country he had carefully prevented anything being done that would lead to the permanent occupation of the territory. All that the Government had done was—without prejudice to the question whether the occupation was to be permanent or temporary—to guarantee the peace of the territory until they had arrived at a final decision in the matter. Sir Gerald Portal was now on his way home, and the Government had received recently from him only a short telegram which corresponded with the information that appeared in the newspapers, and until they had obtained further information from him they could arrive at no final determination in reference to the matter. But undoubtedly he could say that there was no intention in the minds of the Government to come to a hasty decision with regard to it, and until the House had had an opportunity of considering the subject. He had now travelled over all the points raised.

SIR C. W. DILKE

There is the question of the French Catholic claims.

SIR E. GREY

said, the Government had not come to any decision on that, as they required further consideration.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, the hon. Baronet had made a very important statement. Did he pledge the Government that they would take no steps with regard to the retention of Uganda or the future government of that country without first submitting the matter to the consideration of the House?

SIR E. GREY

said, he was not in a position to pledge the Government to that extent; all he could say was that the Government had taken no decision at present, and did not anticipate taking any decision, certainly, before the Autumn Session. Sir Gerald Portal had not reached the coast; and, before any final decision was taken, they must communicate with him. Emergencies might arise, but undoubtedly it was not their present intention to come to any specific decision on this question before other Papers were laid before Parliament.

SIR R. TEMPLE

asked where Sir Gerald Portal was now?

SIR E. GREY

replied that Sir Gerald Portal was somewhere between Uganda and the coast, but he could not state exactly where; he expected to be at the coast at the end of the month.

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL

asked if he was to understand that on the question of principle no decision would be come to with regard to Uganda before the matter was discussed by Parliament?

MR. A. C. MORTON

asked whether the hon. Baronet was going to run away from the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had given, that nothing should be done with regard to the retention of Uganda until the House had had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

SIR E. GREY

said, that, of course, any pledge that had been given by the Prime Minister would have far greater force than anything that he could say. He had already said that no decision would be come to in the matter by the Government before the Autumn Sittings. Of the questions that remained there was the question of the Danube. They had had a Representative on the Danube Commission for many years, and there was no reason to alter the arrangement just now. It was most important they should have a Representative on that Commission; and, as to the publication of the Reports, they dealt usually with details, which were not of sufficient general interest to be published. Larger questions might arise involving careful consideration, and that was one reason why they kept their Representative on the Danube Commission. With reference to the last question raised, the consolidation of the two offices of Consul General and of Judge at Shanghai, the result of the amalgamation was a saving of £2,000 a year in salary and £416 a year in rent. The step was not taken without full consideration, because the saving ought not to be made if it was to result to the detriment of the work to be done. The appeal cases were few in number, and it was felt the work might be done by one man, and accordingly the authorities were well advised to make this considerable reduction.

SIR C. W. DILKE

There is the further question of the Niger Company's lands.

SIR E. GREY

said, that in time the coterminous boundaries of the Niger Company with those of foreign States in Africa would be delimitated by agreement with other countries. The question of boundaries was one of the most troublesome at the Foreign Office. So far as they could they were confirming the paper boundaries that now existed by lines traced on the spot.

MR. A. C. MORTON

asked whether the Trade Reports from our Consuls abroad could not be presented to the Public Libraries throughout the country?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

wished to ask a question arising under the China Vote—namely, whether the hon. Gentleman could not now give them Papers with regard to the Pamirs matter, and also Papers with regard to Siam? There might be some difficulty with regard to the Pamirs; but with regard to Siam, he thought the time had now arrived when they might be allowed to know—which was the most important thing to know—what the Government did when the question first arose?

COMMANDER BETHELL

asked the Government whether Metu was to be now regarded as a Protectorate or not?

SIR E. GREY

It is regarded as a Protectorate.

COMMANDER BETHELL

Is Mr. Reed Consul there?

SIR E. GREY

said, the country was a British Protectorate when the present Government came into Office, and it remained so still. It was not annexed to Zanzibar, but it was being administered from Zanzibar.

COMMANDER BETHELL

asked if it was to be administered by the Zanzibar Consul General?

SIR E. GREY

Yes; and the hon. Member would see the exact terms of the Proclamation in the last Paper that had been laid. With regard to Siam, he was afraid the incidents were not closed; and until they were closed it would be impossible to lay Papers on this subject without running the risk of producing further complications to those that had already existed. With regard to the Trade Reports, he might say they had continual applications at the Foreign Office for a supply of these Trade Reports. The practice was to present them to the House first, and to inform other applicants where they could be freely purchased.

MR. A. C. MORTON

observed that the hon. Baronet had not answered his question with respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Behring Sea Arbitration.

SIR E. GREY

said, that he had no wish to under-rate the work done by the hon. Member opposite on the Behring Sea Arbitration, but he would point out that the arrangements for that Commission were concluded by the late Government.

MR. A. C. MORTON

wanted to know upon what principle a Member of the House who was not a lawyer was remunerated for his services upon one scale, while Members of the House who were lawyers were paid upon quite another scale?

SIR E. GREY

said, it was not a question of principle at all.

Vote agreed to.

2. £638, to complete the sum for Slave Trade Services.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

observed that, whilst the efforts of the Government had been devoted with a considerable amount of success to the suppression of the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa, there had arisen a very considerable Slave Trade on the North Coast. The centre of the Slave Trade had been changed. It was now no longer at or near Zanzibar, but was still being carried on, though in a less degree, on the North Coast. He should, therefore, like to know whether there was any intention of extending the operations for the suppression of the Slave Trade in the direction of the Gulf of Sidra, where, he was informed, a large number of caravans arrived each year, and where the trade in slaves was still going on?

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that he was not aware of any intention at the present time to extend the operations in the direction which the hon. Member indicated.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, that while the Government were asking for this Vote to put down slavery on the seaboard, he was afraid, from the statement of the hon. Baronet, that they had an intention of giving up the control over the sources of this traffic. If that was to be their policy, then he thought the country should know, and should be released from wasting this money for putting down the Slave Trade, after having abandoned the country—if it was their intention to abandon it—in which the sources of that trade existed.

SIR E. GREY

I expressly said they had come to no decision.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, it was true the hon. Baronet had said no decision had been come to; but the reply left grave doubts as to what was the intention of the Government. The British people would regard this Vote for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the seaboard as insufficient if the Government gave up all control over the country inland where that Slave Trade mainly originated.

Vote agreed to.

3. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,066, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in coarse of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)

observed that they had had no Papers whatever upon the progress of British Bechuanaland during the last two or three years. For a year or two in the ordinary commercial intelligence furnished to this House they had small leaflets about Bechuanaland, giving them the revenue and expenditure. No balance-sheet had been presented to them, and it would be very convenient if they could have such a statement, especially now, when there was a railway proposed to be made through Bechuanaland to the North, by which the revenues of Bechuanaland were to be used in order to guarantee the interest of the expenditure upon that line. He was not going to criticise the construction of the line by the British South Africa Company—he believed there was a gentleman present who would have something to say on that subject. He was not adverse, but, on the contrary, was favourable to a line being made to develop the country; and, although he was not favourable to a Chartered Company, he thought the promotion of a transaction like that might be usefully performed by the British South Africa Company, nor did he object to the funds of the Protectorate being used for that purpose. He desired to know whether the revenues of the Protectorate were sufficient to provide the £20,000 a year which had to be found for the interest on the outlay incurred by the construction of the railway? Of course, if he had an assurance that the revenues of the Protectorate were sufficient for the purpose, and would not inconvenience the expenditure in the Protectorate, his objection, at any rate, would be removed. He might say, upon the general policy of constructing the railway, he thought it would be a benefit to Bechuanaland by tending to open up good land, which might be usefully used towards increasing the prosperity of the country. He should also like to have some information about the action of the Government in Bechuanaland in relation to the social progress of the people, education, and so on. The only other subject on which he desired to say a word or two was Swaziland. His opinion was that the interest had gone out of this question a great deal. There was no doubt that in the Transvaal the influx of English people had been so great as to have a considerable effect on the Legislature there, and it would become much greater in process of time. The anxiety which was so largely felt by a great many people on the question of Swaziland two or three years ago had largely vanished on that account, and so far as he was concerned, if the people of Swaziland were agreeable to be incorporated in the Transvaal Government, and by the terms of the Treaty they had to give their consent, he should have no objection to a new Convention being made upon that basis. Still, if the Transvaal took over Swaziland, he thought a quid pro quo should be given to Natal, which would obviously before long incorporate Zululand, and would then find itself with an inconvenient boundary. He, therefore, suggested that the tongue of land which had been shown as "Schedule B," and which cut into Zululand, should be given up to us by the Transvaal in order to be incorporated with Natal.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

said, there was one transaction in this Vote which, as a supporter of the Government, he regarded with the very gravest regret. He referred to the guarantee which the Government proposed to give for the railway which was to be built through Bechuanaland. The guarantee was to be £20,000 a year for 10 years, and the railway was to be built, not by the British South Africa Company—indeed, the object of the guarantee was to relieve the Company from the undertaking they had already given to build the railway. They had got concession for it for nearly the whole way. ["No!"] The railway was not to be built by the British South Africa Company, but by some independent company afterwards to be formed, and the capital of which was to be raised chiefly by debentures. The first objection to this enormous guarantee of £200,000 out of the money of the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland was that it was given without any formal Parliamentary sanction. That was totally different to the policy adopted in the case of the Irish Light Railways, for instance. An Act of Parliament had to be passed to enable the Irish Light Hail-ways to be made, and yet this sum of money, which was one-fifth of the total amount spent on those railways by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Chief Secretary, was guaranteed without any application to Parliament. This guarantee had been given without any Parliamentary sanction. It was said it was not a Government guarantee, but a guarantee out of the revenues of Bechuanaland. What were the revenues of Bechuanaland? The revenues of Bechuanaland did not pay more than about one-third of the expenses of administering the country; all the rest was paid out of Imperial funds, and so when it was said this was not a guarantee out of Imperial funds, it was a mere trifling with the House. It was really, in fact, a guarantee out of Imperial funds; it was so regarded by capitalists who had asked for that guarantee, and it was only because it was regarded as an Imperial guarantee that they would be able to get the necessary capital subscribed. A further objection he had was that the guarantee would not come into force until the railway was half completed, which might not be for five or six years, and therefore the Government by their promise had bound not only this House but a future Parliament. It was, he contended, a most dangerous precedent that the Government, by its executive action, should enter into an agreement which could not be broken by this House, but which would bind their successors. In the meantime, the money would be asked for on the market on the security of this guarantee, and when the matter subsequently came before the House it would be impossible to go behind what had been done by the Government; therefore, he said that by their mere executive action this Government would bind future Parliaments and Administrations. He found he was not without considerable and weighty support in urging this objection, because the late Government in its closing days deliberately refused to give this guarantee, stating in the telegram they sent out to South Africa that such a guarantee could not be given without consulting Parliament, and there was not then time to consult it. He thought the House would require from the Government a very strong reason for departing from the precedent set by their predecessors and giving this vast guarantee without any sort of Parliamentary sanction. His further objection was that no Papers had been presented to the House since January last until a few days ago. It was said this railway would effect a large saving in the cost of administering Bechuanaland, but that point could not be dealt with in detail at this period of the Session. He would only say that a very large saving could be made at once in the cost of the administration of Bechuanaland. There was nothing like this charge—£100,000 a year—in any of the British Colonies. What was it spent on? On a force of cavalry of a most peculiar character, composed chiefly of young men who had failed in their examinations for the Army, who had gone out to South Africa, and who were paid at a very extravagant rate, far higher, in fact, than was paid to any troops in the ordinary British service. These gentlemen were kept there, not in order to keep the peace in Bechuanaland, but in order to protect the northern part of the Protectorate against the Matabele and other enemies of the Chartered Company, and the company had disbanded their police because they knew this force, which was paid out of Imperial funds, was near at hand. The force in Bechuanaland would have been reduced long ago by one-half if it had not been for the proceedings of the Chartered Company. He protested against this procedure of voting £100,000 a year every year for what was really the purposes of the Chartered Company. As he had said, the Chartered Company had disbanded their own police because they knew this force was at hand to help them. He believed if they wanted to reduce the expenses of the Bechuanaland administration the Government could do it without in any way going to this enormous expense of building this railway, they could do it by ordinary administrative means. He found they had already reduced the expenses of administration by £20,000 from last year. He protested against this concession on general financial grounds, because he did not think there ought to be any possibility of British Guaranteed Stock being hawked about on the Stock Exchange for a mere song, which would be the case, for the object of the Company in getting the Government promise was to float this new Stock in debentures on the London market rather than to complete the railway. Whenever they got the money they could do practically as they liked, their Memorandum of Association being so vaguely worded, and they would practically retain control of the Company. He did not think this was at all an undertaking suitable for a Government guarantee. He did not think the Government ought to enter into any financial partnership with an Association like the British South Africa Company. They knew from the Papers presented that day, and the Secretary for the Colonies had solemnly placed it on record, that the Chartered Company obtained their Charter by representing they had concessions, which it turned out afterwards they did not possess, and upon these representations they obtained their capital. They had, according to the Blue Book just published, been guilty of most atrocious crimes—crimes which were a disgrace to British officers who ought to have been gentlemen, and who had massacred unfortunate natives for no adequate cause. The character of the British South Africa Company in its inception and administration of its territory was not such that the Government ought to enter into any financial relations which made them guarantors for the Company, and he thought it extremely unlikely the British South Africa Company would ever pay its £10,000 a year to this Company. He hoped they would have some explanation from the Government. Having said so much, he would, in order to confine the discussion to this one subject, move to reduce the High Commissioner's salary by £200.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item P., Salaries, be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Knox.)

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, he might be allowed to say one or two words about this. He was astonished to find, with reference to the extension of the railway, that there was a guarantee of £20,000 per annum to this railway for 10 years without the previous consent of the House of Commons being obtained. It was all very well to say that the question would be brought up some years hence. That was absurd. The question to be decided was not one of confidence in this particular Government, and it was not possible for it to get fair discussion coming up years hence. He would say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) that they simply wanted to get an opportunity of considering the matter previous to the country being pledged. He remembered that the Radical Party in that House objected to the late Government spending money on the survey of the Mombasa Railway, and it astonished him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was their leader in that opposition—

THE CHAIRMAN

This question of Mombasa is out of Order.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he found that the late Government had in a telegraphic message of June 11, 1892, declared that it was impossible to give any pledge without getting the authority of Parliament; and, again, on June 14, 1892, they refused to pledge themselves even to submit the matter to the House of Commons. That was the attitude of the late Government with reference to the House of Commons and this matter. He merely mentioned this to show that the House ought to be consulted. He understood there had been no survey or estimates of cost with reference to this railway before the Government pledged themselves and, to a certain extent, the people of the country. There was a running survey, but that was all. He complained that the Papers had only been very recently circulated, although some of them were dated in January last. He thought they might have been circulated before now.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

Hear, hear!

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he was glad to hear that expression of approval of his criticism. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would convey his censure to the Department which was responsible for the delay. They should have further information regarding the guarantees and the £200,000. It was not clear what was to be done with the money, nor was it clear whether, if any profit arose, it was to come to them. They were asked to give up 6,000 square miles of land for the benefit of this speculative company. This was British land now. He thought it was not at all right that they should give money and land for ventures of this kind. It was a very unfortunate policy. He trusted it was not too late to stop it; but he thought the Government could have assisted them by an earlier distribution of the Papers, so that a matter of such importance would be discussed before the last days of the Session, when the majority of Members had left town. He wished to suggest, in conclusion, that as the Government were going to be partners in the concern a list of the shareholders should be made public.

SIR W. HARCOURT

We have no power.

MR. A. C. MORTON

hoped the Government would endeavour to have the list published.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, Poplar

said, the hon. Member had laid great stress on the fact that Parliament had not been asked for its sanction before any arrangement was come to. The matter had been considered by the Treasury and the Colonial Office; and it was thought that, taking all the circumstances into account, the House would have a proper opportunity of considering the matter in the form in which it was brought before them, and that there was no need in this case for an Act of Parliament. The Bechuanaland Government were allowed to enter into an agreement with the Railway Company for the formation of the company, and a subsidy had been promised. But that agreement would not come into force until, in ordinary course, the agreement was made and the Treasury Minute laid before the House, and accepted by the absence of an adverse vote. He regretted it was considered there had been any delay, because, as a matter of fact, the Government had given the House information on this question at an earlier period than they would in the ordinary course have received it, though, under ordinary circumstances, they would have waited until the Correspondence was complete. He could only say again that he regretted very much that the Correspondence, incomplete as it was, was delayed so long; but there would be every opportunity for the House to give its opinion on the subject. If they had desired concealment nothing would have been easier than to have kept the Correspondence back 10 days, and so allowed the House to rise without seeing it. So far from desiring that, they were anxious that the House should have the Correspondence before them. They had no desire to go behind the back of Parliament, for if the House chose it could reject the proposal. He hoped, however, the House would not do anything of the kind. They asked the House to consider the position. When the Government came into Office they found that the cost of the Protectorate of Bechuanaland was very heavy, especially in connection with the transport of police and of mails. After consultation with the High Commissioner, they came to the conclusion that the only way to reduce the expenditure was to improve the means of communication. They found that negotiations had gone on under the late Government, and that that Government was to this extent in favour of the scheme—that they had already agreed to the running survey to which his hon. Friend had referred. When Sir H. Loch was in London he presented a more complete scheme than that which was before the late Government. The arrangement was that 600 miles were to be built before any subsidy could be given at all, and that there should be savings equal to that subsidy.

COMMANDER BETHELL

The Revenue?

MR. S. BUXTON

said, the present Grant in Aid was set down at £100,000, and the Estimate was the same this year. He was sorry there was any confusion with regard to the figures.

COMMANDER BETHELL

What is the local revenue?

MR. S. BUXTON

said, he could not give that. They found a scheme placed before them which would be a great benefit to the people of this district, and they thought they were entitled to do what they could to promote it. It had been suggested that they should have nothing to do with the unclean thing—that they should not be connected in any way with schemes promoted by the British South Africa Company; but he was bound to say this, after all the abuse heaped on the company, that they ought to recollect that but for the company they would probably have lost Mashonaland, and that even if they had kept that country they should have had to make a large grant in aid of administration, whereas the company was doing that work for nothing. But, apart from that, it was no use their saying that they would have nothing to do with the company. The company was there, and they were bound to deal with them and to recognise their right to British protection. It was impossible to ignore their existence. The hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Knox) said they had entered into a partnership with the company. He denied that. He said there was no partnership, but simply that the company got a guarantee of a subsidy when the line was completed to the satisfaction of the Bechuanaland Government. No burden would be imposed on the British taxpayer, Sir Henry Loch having guaranteed that the £20,000 a year in subsidy would be saved in the reduced cost of transport.

MR. A. C. MORTON

What about the £200,000?

MR. S. BUXTON

said, the real point in connection with the matter was, what security they would have that these savings would be had. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knox) did not think they would have any security; but they had these lines of defence—the pledge of the High Commissioner, the watch-dog of the Treasury, and then the reduction of the grant in aid. With regard to the question of the share deposit, if the hon. Gentleman would look at the proposal made he would find that if there was a profit the Government would take their portion. He believed that not only would they have savings equal to the subsidy, but through the development of the country they would have a considerably increased revenue from Customs and direct taxation, and the British taxpayer, in whom alone they were interested, would benefit largely through the extension of the railway system. He believed that even before the end of 10 years they would be in a much better position than at present in regard to the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and that they would see this portion of our South African Possessions bearing its own charges and liabilities, and, like most of our Colonies, meeting its own costs of administration. There was no possibility of this benefit accruing if the railway was not made. Whatever might be anyone's opinion of the Chartered Company, and of the British South Africa Company in particular, they would have to deal directly with them, or indirectly, if they were going to extend and develop the railways throughout the British Protectorate. In no sense, however, could they enter into a financial partnership. They were free from any liability in regard to the railway, except that when it was completed and capital had been expended, and the line was open, the Bechuanaland Government were prepared to pay a subsidy, and in the end there would be no greater charge on the British taxpayer.

MR. A. C. MORTON

asked if the hon. Member would give an answer as to the 6,000 square miles of land?

MR. S. BUXTON

said, that if the hon. Member would peruse the Correspondence he would find that that was given for the extension of a railway in another district, and not in connection with the 400 miles under discussion. What had occurred in that respect showed that they had already entered into relations with the Company as to these railways.

MR. KNOX

said, the question had arisen out of a statement by the Secretary for the Colonies. He had said that a Treasury Minute would be made, and would be laid before the House. If he were sure that there would be a full discussion on that Minute, and that the question could be raised on its merits, it would to some extent modify his action. He recognised the futility of taking a Division at this period of the Session, but he asked for a promise that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Treasury Minute. The views of many hon. Members would be modified if they had an assurance that the Government would be represented on the directorate of the railway in proportion to the amount of its contributions.

MR. S. BUXTON

said, that the Government were not entering into a partnership in regard to this railway. When the line was constructed to a certain point a subsidy would be given. He had not been distinguishing between the Chartered Company and the Railway Company.

MR. KNOX

said, that would extinguish a large part of his objection. If there was to be a guarantee given it should be understood that Her Majesty's Government or the Bechuanaland Government should have control over the railway. That matter had not been decided. He did not know any case of a congested district railway in Ireland where some control was not given to the ratepayers. A great many people distrusted Mr. Rhodes, and believed that the Chartered Company was the head and centre of a circle of swindling companies. If two thirds of the Directors were nominated by the Bechuanaland Government and Her Majesty's Government the whole situation, as far as this Company was concerned, would be materially modified.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I regard it as of paramount importance that the control of Parliament should be complete in questions of this kind. I regret that through some omission the Papers on this subject have not been presented sooner, but I assure the Committee that there is no disposition to withdraw this matter from the control of Parliament or withhold information. If this had been a direct Imperial subsidy an Act of Parliament would have been necessary, but it is not an Imperial subsidy. It is a charge on the revenues of the Bechuanaland Authorities. It is said, and said truly, that indirectly the grant in aid is under the control of Parliament, and that Parliament can say how great or how small it shall be. I myself am not an admirer of Protectorates or of Chartered Companies, but the position in which we found ourselves was this, that there was a Chartered Company that had established a Protectorate, and there was an expenditure of £100,000 a year going on. I satisfied myself that if the railway were made the expenditure would be less and the revenue more than it was before. We arranged that under no circumstances should the expenditure exceed the present sum of £100,000 a year. Therefore, we shall have a railway which will very much increase the revenue of the district, and the expenditure coming upon the Estimates will be decreased to the amount of £20,000 a year for police, mails, and other things. As goon as the railway is made we shall have effected a good bargain. Under the circumstances, and the guarantees being many, it did not become necessary to have an Act of Parliament. The Company was only formed in August, and the agreement has not yet been settled. The Treasury Minute has not been drawn up, and, therefore, Parliament, in my opinion, has still complete control over it. I hope the Committee will be satisfied with the discussion that has now taken place on this subject, and will be satisfied with the assurance that the Government have no desire that transactions of this kind should be carried into effect without the full knowledge and consent of Parliament.

MR. KNOX

asked for an assurance that the Government would afford an opportunity for the discussion of the agreement before anything was finally settled in regard to it.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

thought an assurance should be given that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Treasury Minute. He wished to know whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies could give the Committee a list of the shareholders of the Company.

MR. S. BUXTON

I do not know what our powers are in the matter, but I should be very glad indeed if such a list could be prepared, as it seems to me that there ought not to be any concealment on the subject. If there is anything concealed it certainly ought to be made public. It is rather difficult to give a pledge at the present moment that the House shall have an opportunity of a full-dress Debate, but at any rate I think I can assure my hon. Friend that the House will have plenty of opportunity of discussing the subject. The Treasury Minute will be placed before the House, and there will be no attempt either to rush it through or to conceal it from the House. As far as we understand at present, the Railway Company are not in a position to take up the agreement, and therefore there is no immediate prospect of the question of subsidy arising.

MR. KNOX

said, he did not want a full-dress Debate, but some little time for discussion. If the Government would give him an undertaking that the Treasury Minute would not be laid on the Table during the Autumn Sitting he should be glad to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. S. BUXTON

I cannot give that undertaking, because if the Railway Company choose to go on with the agreement we shall be bound to lay the Treasury Minute before the House, but I think the probabilities are very greatly against that happening during the Autumn Session. It is almost certain to be carried over till next year.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, there ought to be no difficulty in giving an opportunity for discussion on the Treasury Minute.

SIR W. HARCOURT

It is entirely our desire that the subject shall be discussed, and we will do what we can to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it. As the House knows, we are in some difficulty as to what we can or cannot bring in during the Autumn Session. It is the intention and desire of the Government to act in good faith and to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing upon the matter.

MR. HANBURY

desired to know whether there were any understandings with the British South Africa Company, because he had come across a very remarkable letter from Mr. Rhodes to Sir Henry Loch in which reference was made to some understanding which, as far he (Mr. Hanbury) could interpret Mr. Rhodes' letter, meant that the railway was to be made up to the north of Bechuanaland, and that all the land was to be practically the property of the Company. He should like to know how far such an understanding existed between the Colonial Office and Mr. Rhodes. He wanted it to be made clear what were the real facts with regard to the territory and lands which the British South Africa Company were handing over to this railroad. He was told that the lands which they were going to hand over to the new railway were not, after all, a free gift on the part of the British South Africa Company, but were actually lands which the British Government handed over to the British South Africa Company on condition that they should make another line, which other line was never made by them, but which Mr. Rhodes got the Cape Government to construct. He was in favour of opening up countries by means of railways; but, looking to the attitude of the British South Africa Company, he was a little distrustful in this case, and did not desire to play into the hands of a speculator.

MR. KNOX

said that, after the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing final should be done in this matter without the House of Commons having a full opportunity of discussing the question, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

desired to call attention to two or three matters in this Vote. The first was with regard to the action of the British South Africa Company in regard to the Mozambique territory and their concessions in that country. In 1888 this territory now in dispute as between the Mozambique Company and the South Africa Company was occupied by British subjects in the main, who were under the jurisdiction of the Queen and Government of this country. But when the British South Africa Company was formed, about 1890 or 1891, these British subjects, owing allegiance to the Queen, were dispossessed from their possession, which they held under favourable terms from the Mozambique Company, by force majeure. Again, from the Blue Book which had been placed on the Table that day it appeared that the relations of the South Africa Company in regard to the Matabele territory were in a somewhat critical condition, and he was well aware of the fact that an important Despatch had been sent by the Minister of State to Sir Henry Loch, stating that no forward action was to be taken; therefore, it was clear that the territory owned by the British South Africa Company was not altogether in a quiescent condition. If, as he contended was the case, the British South Africa Company had wronged British subjects and driven them from territories which these subjects had acquired from a friendly foreign State, the Colonial Office ought gravely and carefully to consider the question with the view to seeing that the rights of such subjects were not taken from them. In Article VIII. of the Draft Charter of the British South Africa Company, it was stated that if at any time our Secretary of State saw fit to object to the exercise by the Company of any authority or power, in any of the territory comprised in any of the concessions, agreements, grants, or Treaties, on the ground of there being an adverse claim to that part, the Company should defer to that objection, until such time as any such claim had been withdrawn or finally dealt with or settled by the Secretary of State. It was apparent from that provision that when the Government decided to grant these important concessions to the British South Africa Company, they also determined that the rights of British subjects in these or neighbouring districts should be absolutely and completely maintained. He urged the Under Secretary to carefully consider the aspect of affairs at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a safe route from the Cape through the Matabele territory to Fort Salisbury and Victoria, but he found it, stated in The Pall Mall Gazette that 100 waggons had to turn back the other day, so that he felt bound to believe that that part of the country was in an unsettled and disorganised state. If that were so, and they were to use the alternative route to the Beira Railway, it was important we should do everything in our power to keep on friendly terms with the Mozambique Company and the Portuguese in the event of our having to send troops to the front. He should like to ask a question about Swaziland. The Swazis were a brave people, and were our allies. They had rendered us useful service, and we guaranteed a Protectorate to them. He was told we could not give up these Swazis to any other State without asking their consent. But how could the Swazis give this consent? It was no use to ask them to go to the ballot, because they could neither read nor write. He urged that before any step was taken which would result in handing the Protectorate over to Swazis to another Power an opportunity should be given to the House of Commons to carefully consider the question.

SIR R. TEMPLE

observed, that they had not yet succeeded in getting the Papers with regard to Swaziland; but even without the Papers he was anxious to challenge briefly, but very positively, the policy of the British Government in respect to the natives of Swaziland, without presuming to specify how far Her Majesty's present Government might be responsible for that or not. What was Swaziland? It was the territory stretching eastwards from the shore of the great bay to the base of the mountain range that formed the eastern flank of the Transvaal uplands. In this important tract inhabited by the Swazis there were two interests; first, the construction of a railway, and, secondly, the protection, direct or indirect, of the natives who dwelt there. In regard to the railway, it was obvious that this line must be vital to the interests of the Transvaal. Of course, he should desire that this important work of constructing the railway should be done by our country and countrymen; but if we could not and would not undertake the work it must be done by somebody, and if the Boers would undertake it, the Boers must have their way, and he should be very sorry to say more in opposition to that. Apart from the question of the railway, there remained this matter of the future welfare of the natives. The two questions were absolutely distinct. It would be perfectly possible for the Boer Republic to make this line, and have full control over it, and yet for the rights of the natives who lived on the South and the North of that line to be properly safeguarded; and his allegation was, they were not going to be safeguarded. On the other hand, these natives, who really needed our protection, were about to be abandoned to their fate by the British Government—the fate of being in entire subjection to a Republic eminently unsuited to control or manage native tribes—a Republic which was tolerably certain to trample into the dust the rights of the natives. He contended that England, in conjunction with the Boers, had placed itself under the moral obligation to protect the Swazis; and if the effect of the Convention was to relieve us of that obligation, he pronounced it as unjust to the people of Swaziland. We had placed ourselves under certain moral obligations to take care of these poor Swazis, and give them the benefit of that British protection which had proved a blessing to hundreds of millions of people in different parts of the world. This protection had been undoubtedly shared between us and the Boers of the Transvaal Republic, and the question was, were we going to retain our share in the management of Swaziland or not? not for any selfish aggrandisement of ours, but for the fulfilment of the rights and equitable obligations which we had incurred towards a population that could not help themselves. He assumed the Convention was going to be ratified and placed on the Table of the House; but it would be more satisfactory if the Convention was placed on the Table first and ratified afterwards, so that the House of Commons might have a little to say on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell) had alluded to the introduction of the English element into the Transvaal; but, notwithstanding that, the British duties in regard to the protection of the natives remained intact and unimpaired. The Boers were a very enterprising class of colonists, but it would be flattering them too much to say they had ever shown themselves able to manage native tribes. He was afraid the very opposite was to be said for them. There were many cir- cumstances connected with the Boers which told most unfavourably in their conduct towards the natives of Africa. He repeated, that the Boers were the very last people to whom the care of native tribes ought to be made over. As regarded the English element, he was bound to say that, with all the splendid qualities of his countrymen in this semi-civilised country, some control over them in their dealings with the natives was absolutely necessary, and if they were to be allowed to have uncontrolled power over the native tribes to whom we were under obligations then he said we should not be doing our duty. We were bound to take care that the Swazis were protected as much against our countrymen in the Transvaal as they were against the Boers. It was said that the Swazis were to be masters of their own destinies, inasmuch as they were to settle for themselves whether they should go over to the Transvaal. But he contended that was absolutely worth nothing. The Swazis undoubtedly had a tribal organisation with a certain sort of administration of their own, which could hardly be called a Government. They had their chiefs and a King of their own. But if they were made over to the Boers—that was to say, the Transvaal Government—by a Convention under the authority of Her Majesty's Government, they would have to consent absolutely without the slightest objection or demur to any conditions which the Transvaal Government might be pleased to impose. Of course, they would consent. What else could they do? The idea of our escaping our Imperial obligations and shirking our Imperial duty upon the ground that these Swazis would consent was the merest excuse, and one which he was sanguine the House of Commons would never accept. Upon these various grounds he contended we were bound to maintain our protecting position in Swaziland; that we must continue to hold our sheltering ægis over these poor natives, to take care they were not trodden under foot and oppressed by the Transvaal Republic, and if the existing arrangements did not admit of our having the entire control we should maintain our joint control of the means of doing justice to the Swazis. Although we might not have technically and legally a Protectorate in Swaziland, we had virtually undertaken obligations there, and the good faith of the British Government was as solemnly pledged as if it were set forth in a written document. He trusted that the House would preserve that British good faith which had never yet failed in any part of the world.

MR. HANBURY

said, he did not think that there were the political objections to the cession of Swaziland to the Boers that might have existed some years ago before the growth of British influence. British interests were growing so rapidly in the Transvaal that even if Swaziland were handed over to that Government it would not be very long before it again came under the control of this country. But he attached great importance to our obligations of honour. He wanted some clear information as to how far any written or verbal engagements had been entered into with the Boers. The obligations that we were under towards the Swazis were undoubtedly strong, because the promise that they should never fall into the hands of the Boers was given at a time when they rendered us valuable assistance against the Boers; and it would be fatal if the natives of South Africa were taught that England was not true to her word. Did the Government intend to abide by the latter engagement or not? What did the Boers want with Swaziland? It was clear that their object was to acquire the laud for themselves. The Boers' idea of the treatment of natives greatly differed from our own; and if we did hand the territory of Swaziland over to the Boers we ought to have the fullest guarantees that the rights of the natives would be protected. The argument that the consent of the Swaziland Government would have to be given to any arrangement was a mere farce and piece of hypocrisy, because the Swazi Government was in effect the King, a boy 17 or 18 years old, and they all knew how the consent of the Sovereign of a savage country was obtained. It did not follow that, because the Boers had treated the Swazis well, so long as we were there to control them, they would continue to do so when they were unchecked by British influence. They were being elbowed out of the Transvaal, and Swaziland was about the only piece of open country adjoining into which they could trek, and undoubtedly their idea of the way in which natives should be treated was entirely different from ours. That must not be allowed to happen unless the fullest guarantees were obtained for the protection of the natives, to which we were fully pledged. He did not say a word with regard to the rights of the English concessionaires in Swaziland, for they were perfectly able to protect themselves. So far as he was able to understand the question, a complete change of opinion had taken place in the Cape Government as to the concession of Swaziland. Some time ago Mr. Rhodes was strong against any concession of Swaziland to the Transvaal. Now, this proposal for the concession of Swaziland was made by Mr. Rhodes and the Cape Government. This was a part of a large policy of the Cape Government to establish a great Customs Union throughout South Africa, which he was afraid would have the effect of placing a heavy burden on the import of English goods. It was clear that the Cape Government desired that Swaziland should be handed over to the Transvaal, because they hoped that the Transvaal would thereby be induced to enter into the Customs Union by which the importance of Cape Town would be maintained, as the great port for South Africa. But the result of such a Customs Union would be that the Import Duties upon British manufactures would be raised from the 5 per cent. at which they now stood to 12 per cent. His only hope was the strong objection which the Boers entertained against entering the Customs Union. However, before the Government agreed to the concession of Swaziland, they should see that the interests of the natives were safeguarded, and make sure that they were not placing a heavy burden on our exported goods to South Africa.

COMMANDER BETHELL

explained that when he spoke about getting the assent of the people of Swaziland he meant that we were quite capable, through our officers, of getting the consent of every tribe if we chose.

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL

appealed to the Government, before ratifying any Convention for the cession of the country, to consider the statesmanlike course of renewing the old Convention, continuing the present provisional state of things until the British inhabitants of the Transvaal had obtained the franchise and asserted themselves.

MR. S. BUXTON

regretted that, in consequence of the delays in negotiating the Convention, it was impossible to present Papers to the House. Had it been otherwise, they would have been spared some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who, speaking in the dark, had totally misrepresented the position of the Government and the results that they hoped would accrue if the Convention was ultimately signed. It was hardly right that the inhabitants of a friendly nation should be spoken of in the language that the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) had used. He dissented very strongly from the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member with reference to the Boers. Though it was possible that in the old days, before they became a civilised nation, the Boers might have practised considerable cruelty towards the natives, nevertheless he was certain that at the present time the Transvaal Boers were in a totally different position. The Transvaal was becoming year by year more English and less Dutch, and, therefore, he did not believe that there was now any foundation for any fears with regard to the natives. The Government were carrying out the pledges of the late Government when they authorised Sir Henry Loch to confer with President Krüger, with a view to carrying out, as far as might be, the wishes of the Transvaal Government in this matter. He denied altogether that we had any Protectorate over the territory, but admitted our moral obligations with regard to the natives; and, in any Convention that the Government might carry through, they would have very due regard indeed for those obligations. The independence of the Swazis had been recognised to this extent—that neither England nor the Transvaal could encroach upon it without the assent of the other party. The Convention proposed that we should withdraw the existing prohibition to the Transvaal entering into an organic agreement with the Swazi nation. As to the question of the assent of the Swazis being duly ascertained, the country was governed, not by a King, who was a minor, but by a Queen Regent and a Council of all the Chiefs, and, as far as was known, this Council was very representative indeed of the Swazi nation, and any resolution they came to would be confirmed by the natives themselves. The Government were not going to hand them over altogether to what was called the tender mercies of the Boers. The Government would take care that proper provision was made for the protection of the natives in the management of their own internal affairs, their own laws and customs, and especially the laws of inheritance and succession, where such laws were not inconsistent with those of civilised nations; and, further, they would be protected in the continued use and occupation of land now in their possession, and all grazing and agricultural rights to which they were at present entitled. So far as the Government were concerned, they would see that the Swazis were not worse off after their arrangement with the Transvaal than before. In regard to the European rights, care would be taken that Europeans had protection and freedom in all their personal and proprietary rights, so long as they were legitimate rights; and arrangements would be made that they should become burghers of the South African Republic for all voting purposes. While Swaziland was absolutely useless to ourselves, the Convention might bring about a friendly arrangement with the South African Republic, which would be doing something for the ultimate federation of the races and Powers throughout South Africa. It would remove what had been, in the past, a source of friction between the Dutch and English elements, and would be of benefit to the Transvaal and England, and not detrimental to the Swazis. In answer to the hon. Member for Preston, he might say that the Customs Union question did not arise in this connection. Care would be taken also that the prohibition in regard to the sale of liquor to the natives would be continued.

SIR R. TEMPLE

asked whether we would retain any control in Swaziland, so that, in the event of any invasion of the rights of the natives of their lands, they would have an appeal to England?

MR. S. BUXTON

said, he thought that when the Convention was presented to the House—and he hoped it would not be long before it was signed—the hon. Baronet would see that the Government had protected the rights of the Swazis, and that they had taken care that this protection should be no mere paper protection.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

4. £32,400, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.