§ On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said, he desired to repeat the question which he put yesterday, and again at the commencement of to-day's Sitting, with reference to the promised statement on Uganda. Last week the Government pledged themselves in another place that they would make a general statement in regard to Uganda. Lord Salisbury pointed out that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who he assumed would make that statement, would be confined to the new Vote. Lord Rosebery, in reply, said that the statement would not be made by the Under Secretary, but by the Leader of the House, and he implied that the statement would be a general one. He (the speaker) would not now raise the point of Order as to the position of the new Vote—whether it could be included in the Vote on Account. That point would, he believed, be raised to-morrow, but assuming that it could, he would ask whether the Government distinguished between the new Vote and the ordinary Uganda Vote, what course they proposed to take in regard to these Votes, and when the general statement of the policy of the Government would be made?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick)said, the intention of the Government was to make the statement on 596 Uganda to-morrow, if that portion of the Vote on Account should be reached in the Debate to which the statement would be germane. But if it should not be found possible to reach that portion of the Vote on Account which would provide the natural opportunity for making the statement to-morrow, then the Government proposed that what they had to say with regard to this part of Africa should be stated at the beginning of the Debate which would arise on the Report of the whole Vote on Account on Friday.