EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATE AND UGANDA.

HC Deb 10 April 1899 vol 69 cc693-725

* MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

On Saturday a very interesting Report by Sir Arthur Hardinge on British East Africa was put into our hands. It is a matter for congratulation that the Administrator in East Africa seems to take a very hopeful view in regard to the position of affairs there. It appears that civilisation is spreading, and that courts of justice are taking the place of devastating and retaliatory raids But there is one aspect of that Report which is not quite so favourable, and that is that so far from there being any increase in the export trade of British East Africa there is a distinct decline, amounting to 10 per cent, There has been, it is true, a considerable increase in the imports from this country, but when it is remembered that these imports are largely due to the money expended by the East African Government, I do not think that it can be said these are of much value from the point of view of trade. A comparative statement of the figures for 1896–97 and 1897–98 shows that the exports from the East African Protectorate had fallen from 11 lakhs of rupees to 10 lakhs, or nearly a drop of 10 per cent. There is one other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that is that there is no direct line of steamers between Great Britain and Zanzibar. In his Report last year, Sir Arthur Hardinge made this observation— It has been suggested that Her Majesty's Government should give the British India Company, in lieu of an increased subsidy, the carriage of all material for the Uganda Railway, on the understanding that the company should run a direct line from London via Marseilles to Zanzibar and Mombasa. The guarantee of the carriage, even of a certain portion of the material, in all probability, would enable the British India Company to run a local line of steamers from Zanzibar to Kismayo, calling at the various intermediate ports. Such a line is absolutely imperative if the coast trade is to be developed. On that recommendation of Sir Arthur Hardinge it might have been expected that something would have been done to make use of the immense amount of traffic which we are necessarily creating by the exports of materials for the Uganda Railway, in order, not to subsidise a British line of steamers, but to give exclusive contracts to a British line to Mombasa. The facts, however, are otherwise than what we should have expected. There is a German line with a subsidy of £45,000 which makes a fortnightly communication between Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Antwerp, and Zanzibar. The steamers of that line now call regularly once a month at Mombasa. British shipping-is solely represented by small British India steamers with a 7-knots contract running from Calcutta, via Aden, and from Bombay, via Seychelles, to Mombasa, Sir Arthur Hardinge again refers in his Report this year to the inconveniences which have occurred to British traders on account of this want of direct British communication. Referring to what he had stated in his previous year's Report, he says— At the beginning of 1898 the mail steamers of the German East Africa Line commenced calling one a month at Mombasa, both outwards and homewards, and it has so far proved a great advantage for mails and passengers to have additional direct steamers between Mombasa and Europe. Complaints are, however, made of pilfering which takes place on board or at the transhipment ports of Hamburg, Amsterdam, or Antwerp, while goods are awaiting shipment. An importer recently informed me that he was surprised to find a case of English provisions one-third short of the invoiced quantity, and the empty space fitted up by a German broom. Another recently received a bicycle case, which, on being opened directly it was landed from the German mail steamer, was found empty, although there were evidences that a bicycle had been previously stowed there from the wedges of wood placed inside to keep it in position. This cannot have happened in the Custom House, as the owner cleared it directly it was discharged. The British Indian steamers have suffered considerably in this respect owing to their transhipment cargo having to wait for some time at Aden, which is notorious for possessing thieves second to none. Thus we find the position with regard to British traders is this, that their goods have to be sent from Great Britain either to Hamburg or Antwerp for transhipment to German steamers, where serious losses are incurred from pilfering; or, if the British manufacturers do not wish to employ German steamers they have to send their goods for transhipment to Aden, where, as at Hamburg, they are liable to very serious losses from pilfering. Great delay is also caused at Aden, and the total cost of freight is more by that route than it is for German shippers who send their goods direct from Hamburg. When we remember that the taxpayers of this country are spending at least three millions on the Uganda Railway, it does seem somewhat hard that the recommendation made by Sir Arthur Hardinge should not have been adopted in order to make use of the great expenditure on railway materials, not to subsidise, but directly to assist a line of British steamers between Great Britain and Zanzibar. Now, when I turn from British East Africa to Uganda, I regret very much that the latest reports do not show any such hopeful signs. We have had during the last year a very serious loss of life, and a most remarkable increase in the expenditure for Uganda. The figures for the current year, although they are nominally less than those for last year, do not hold out, on balance, any prospect of reduction in the estimates of the present year. The estimates for 1899–1900 amount to £250,000, but the original estimates for Uganda in 1898–99 were only £142,000; the Supplementary Estimates came to £197,000, making a total of £339,000. Although the £250,000 in this year's Estimates is a decrease on the total of £339,000 spent last year, we have got to look forward to possible Supplementary Estimates which may as much increase the Estimates this year as last. Now, when we go back to the time when we first undertook the administration of Uganda, we find that the total amount expended only amounted to £49,000. That figure of £49,000 has now increased to the nominal estimate of £250,000, and an actual expenditure of £339,000 last year. That is a very remarkable and alarming increase, and there does not appear, on the face of the papers before us, any sign of a reduction, but rather of an increase in the future. I admit it is impossible to suggest any amendment in the form of government for Uganda without in some way or other proposing an expenditure of money; but I submit that between the original estimate of £49,000 and the current estimate of £250,000 there is a wide enough margin to have allowed for all proper expenditure. I maintain that this extraordinary expenditure has been due to the mismanagement that has taken place in Uganda, and not to any fault or defect on the part of the men employed there. It is solely due to the policy which has been pursued—a policy directed from headquarters in London, and in the main due to a hopeless and ridiculous desire for economy, which in the long run has added largely and unnecessarily to our expenditure. Upon the second point I have named—the loss of life— I find the figures show that in 1897 down to May 1898 there were no fewer than 281 killed, including seven Europeans, and 555 wounded, including five Europeans. I believe that the whole of these troubles in Uganda can be directly ascribed to two causes: In the first place, to the exclusive use of Soudanese troops; and, in the second place, to our utilising our forces in Uganda for the purpose of endeavouring to expand our Empire northwards. To these two causes I trace the origin of all our troubles. The employment of Soudanese mercenaries appears to have originated somewhat by an accident. When the honourable Member for North Lambeth went to the relief of Emin Pasha he found the ex-Governor of Equatorial Africa surrounded by a number of Soudanese mercenaries, who were partly under the command of Dr. Emin, and who partly kept him a prisoner. Stanley gave these Soudanese mercenaries the slip on the shores of the Albert Nyanza, and from there they spread partly into Unyoro and partly into the Congo State. The description given of the Soudanese mercenaries by Stanley is that they were "permeated and saturated with mutiny, rebellion, and treason." Certainly, for two years after these troops were left at Kavallis, they lived by ravaging and raiding neighbouring territories. In 1891 Captain Lugard, who was then administering at Uganda on behalf of the British East Africa Company, found himself in great difficulties on account of the ex-Soudanese troops. He then hit upon the brilliant idea of enlisting some of them as soldiers to serve under him, and he made the first start with a detachment of 200, whom he employed in garrisoning Toru. The 1,500 unenlisted Soudanese ravaged Unyoro and elsewhere, but the outrages committed by the enlisted Soudanese mercenaries still continued, and Captain Lugard, in apologising for their misconduct, in a letter dated 13th December 1893, said that he had been debarred from exercising such a full measure of supervision and control as he should have desired, owing to the insufficient number of Europeans available to the Administration. In the same year Sir Gerald Portal called attention to the hatred and terror inspired by these Soudanese ex-soldiers, and the deeds of cruelty practised upon native men and women by that portion of them who were left by the company unpaid and uncontrolled on the western frontier of Uganda. Thus it will be seen that it was not only the unenlisted Soudanese mercenaries who were creating terror and havoc, but even the enlisted troops were a terror to the whole neighbourhood. Captain Lugard undertook this experiment because he had no other recourse. He was the representative of the British East Africa Company, whose financial resources were then at a very low ebb, lie had not, as the Administrator in Uganda has now, the whole wealth and strength of the British Empire behind him. The experiment was repeated by Colonel Colville, the British Administrator. He, no doubt, recognised the value of these Soudanese mercenaries as fighting material once they were brought under strict discipline. Accordingly, he and his successors continued enlisting them until in September 1897 we had no less than 1,600 of these men regularly enlisted, and practically forming the whole of our Army in Uganda. The Soudanese have not only the merit of being good fighters, but they are very cheap. And for this reason: that every soldier is allowed to have as many wives and slaves as he chooses. Their wives do all the work, clear the jungle, sow the seed, pull up the weeds, and reap the fruits; and if the harvest is late they often anticipate it by a little stealing. The consequence is that the soldiers being allowed to have as many wives as they please to work for them, are in a position to accept very much less pay than Indians or Swahilis. Now, I do not deny for one moment that these Soudanese troops have shown considerable improvement on the robbers turned loose at Kavallis. When they have been employed in small bodies in Uganda and Unyoro, and mixed with a number of other troops, there has been little to complain of in a military sense. But still their old predatory instincts remain, they are "permeated and saturated with mutiny, rebellion, and treason," and more than once have given indications of sympathy with the Mahdists. I regret to say that such is the material of which we make the pack-horse to bear the white man's burden in Uganda. It is a sorry tool in our hands, and hardly worthy of the dreams of spreading civilisation of which we boast in this country. It is admitted that some native force is necessary in order to govern Uganda. The Waganda are slow to enlist at the present time, because they are too loyal to their chiefs. We ought to have employed Swahili troops. It is proved that they make admirable soldiers. They have only one drawback; they are somewhat dear. This desire to govern Uganda for £49,000 a year is all wrong. It cannot be done. Experience has shown it to be a hopeless failure. The troubles in that country were simply and solely due to the anxiety not to let the people of Great Britain realise the financial responsibilities we are undertaking in our African Empire. In consequence of that desire, we employed Soudanese mercenaries, because they are cheap, and neglected the Swahilis, and thereby made the difficulty of governing these territories infinitely greater. On the whole, I believe we should have found had we employed Swahilis, it would have been less costly, in the long run, to this country, and far less costly to Uganda, when we recollect the immense devastation caused by the Soudanese troops and their wives and families. The rage for economy, which has increased the expenditure from £19,000 to £339,000, has not been limited to the Army. It also extended to the administration. I will read very shortly the testimony given in a book recently published by Dr. Ansorge, who was in temporary command at Kampala for four and a half months at the end of 1891. He says— I had to combine administrative, military, and medical duties; I had to act as magistrate and commandant; I had charge of the prison and police; I was paymaster and postmaster; I was collector and registrar; I was storekeeper and bookkeeper. Now, perhaps Dr. Ansorge, in his somewhat picturesque style, may have represented to the very full all the duties which he had to perform, but it is very obvious that our administration in Uganda was under-staffed, just as we were under-equipped from a military point of view. We have not, even now, any trained Service in Uganda. When the mutiny broke out, what was the result? We had immediately to entrust the administration to all sorts, and conditions of men—a colonel's valet, a bishop's secretary, and so forth. The missionaries we found invaluable, not only as administrators, but as soldiers, and we have to deplore the death of one of them on the field of battle. All this shows that we undertook the white man's burden, in Uganda and the neighbouring provinces without any real regard to the duties which our undertaking brought upon us. Of course, we are told to look to the future, and to the wealth which is to be drawn from these territories by the expansion of trade. Those who believe in the possibilities of trade expansion in Africa may comfort themselves with that hope. But in the meantime if we undertake responsibilities, we owe it as a duty to ourselves and to the protected States to carry out these responsibilities properly. It is true, and I am glad to recognise it, that with this paltry equipment in men and officers our officials have achieved marvels; and it is to the credit of Mr. Berkeley and his coadjutors that they have succeeded so well as they have done with such scanty material. All that is a matter for congratulation. Mwanga had become so far civilised that he used to drive to church on a, Sunday in his brougham. But although there were these apparent signs of improvement, there was no real stability. We had first the outbreak of Gabriel, then the rebellion of Mwanga., and the trouble with Kabarega. It was in the midst of our weakness, and when the whole of the troubles accumulated on the heads of our officials, it was at that moment that orders were sent out from Downing Street to undertake the expedition northwards in order to anticipate the French at Fashoda. The troops, already fatigued with constant fighting, were withdrawn from Uganda for that purpose, and is it surprising that the Soudanese, permeated and saturated with mutiny, treason, and rebellion, should have broken out into open mutiny? Is it surprising that we have since had trouble upon trouble when we recollect that Uganda was depleted of its troops to form the abortive expeditions under Colonel Macdonald and Colonel Martyr towards Fashoda and Lake Rudolph? If we are going to undertake the organisation of our Empire in Africa we must face our responsibilities at once, fairly and squarely. We must not encourage the wretched chiefs to rebellion by our apparent weakness; and we must not endeavour to make Uganda a jumping-off ground for expansion northwards.

* COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock, Burghs)

I will only deal with one part, and a very small part, of the subject which has been brought forward by the honourable Member for Monmouth. It is, however, a matter in which I have interested myself for two and a half years. I am sorry to say that it appears to be no nearer a, conclusion than on the day when it began. I refer to the proposed line of steamers between British ports and the ports of British East Africa, to which the honourable Gentleman has alluded in his speech. The origin of British East Africa is pretty well known to the House. We do not owe it to the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office, but to the disinterested patriotism of a number of private individuals who initiated Imperial British East Africa. After having worked it for a number of years they got rid of it to the Government on the payment of about 50 per cent of their expenses. In these days there was no Uganda Railway, even in prospect, but a line of steamers was started with a subsidy of £19,000. At the conclusion of the second year the line was brought to an end, after a loss had been incurred of £45,000, including a subsidy of £19,000. The result was that British East Africa was left without any connection with this country whatever. Either out of a spirit of patriotism, or from some other motive, a German line, with a monthly service to Mombasa, was started and, as stated by Sir Sir Arthur Hardinge, the German Government granted it a subsidy of £45,000. Within the last few months, so much are the Germans in love with the prospects of this line, that they have increased their service to fortnightly sailings. Now, Sir, British subjects object very strongly to anything being done by Germans which can be done equally well by them, and at less expense. But the result of the present state of affairs is that, so far as outward freight is concerned, the only possible mode of shipping is by way of Hamburg or Antwerp. The alternative route is by trans-shipment at Aden, but that is impossible for large parcels of goods. The Crown Agents' steamers under special charter for large quantities of railway materials are not available. The result is the loss of any homeward traffic, which is now practically going to Germany. In fact, the central markets for ivory and rubber have already left this country and gone to Germany. On the 16th March 1897 I approached the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Curzon, and made him a definite proposal to establish a line of British steamers to the East African ports, having previously arranged with a reliable firm who would undertake it. I assured him that, so far as I personally was concerned, it was a matter of no moment. He looked upon the proposal favourably as long as I had him individually to myself. I asked him who had the working of the materials for the Uganda Railway, and he informed me that it was done by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, who were temporarily lent to the Foreign Office for the purpose. I went to see them, and was told that the idea was a good one, and that nothing but the Foreign Office stood in the way. Six or nine months after objections began to crop up. I was told that my friends and I wanted to make money out of it. Well, that is quite a justifiable supposition, but it so happened that we had no prospect of making money at that time, nor for a good long time to come. I proposed to take out the materials for the Uganda Railway, getting what homeward cargo we could from the district.

The objections to the original proposal of a fixed rate was that the Government might lose, and the Crown Agents might lose; but nothing was said about freights going up, although fixed low in the contract, thus entailing loss on the shipowners. Then I altered my proposal to a, rate fluctuating with the rates of coal to Aden—which is the very cheapest species of traffic—with a small extra amount for giving two ports of loading in England and two- ports of discharge in East Africa. The original offer was 10s. per ton over coal rates, but I was told that that was too high. I then proposed 7s. 6d., but I got no reply, and then proposed 5s., but with no result. I have looked most carefully into the matter, and have examined the record of every ship chartered by the Crown Agents for taking the railway material out to East Africa. I have compared it with the rates for coal to Aden within a fortnight of the fixture of each sailing, and I find that, allowing the 7s. 6d. per ton over coal rates, there would have been a saving on the Uganda Railway of 1s. 1d. per ton since the beginning of its construction. But even if there had been no gain, the House of Commons would surely have condoned an arrangement to give British industry a fair chance against subsidised German capitalists. The Foreign Office said that money might be made by the shipowners, but they absolved me front any personal aim in this direction. Money-making, as I have said, was not possible at first, but my friends, in order to meet this objection, offered to take the entire risk for a year on the terms named, and at the end of the year to submit the results to the Foreign Office. If the books showed that money had been made, then public tenders were to be called for, and my friends, who are the largest shippers to East Africa, guaranteed to send all their goods by any British line to which the Government might give the order. If the results were bad, and money was lost, then the shipowners were just to grin and bear it. Objections being still raised, I thought it might be due to fear on the part of the Crown Agents' office that they would lose their 1 per cent. which they get upon all goods shipped to the Colonies under their control, and to a fear on the part of the Government brokers that they might lose their commission. We agree to see that neither of these events happened, and we thought that we had met every possible objection. The final result was that after many conversations with the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose courtesy was exceedingly great, we received the reply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to grant a subsidy. That is to say, the Foreign Office refused an offer which had never been made. We did not propose a subsidy; we knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not grant a subsidy. All that we asked was that the materials for the Uganda Railway should be shipped in such a way as to give a foundation for a service to East Africa of a line of British steamers. After that foundation was laid the line would look after itself. It has been said that we can dispatch goods to East Africa via Aden or by the German line. No one in his senses would tranship at Aden, and therefore we are practically restricted to the German line, whose balance-sheet shows that they are doing surprisingly well. They are increasing their sailings, and it is becoming more and more impossible to initiate a British line. I know it is a little difficult to persuade the Foreign Office that there is any patriotism outside Downing Street. We have been met there practically by a stone wall. It is no use to advance arguments that are not looked at, and to knock your head against that stone wall month after month and year after year. From the manner in which the Foreign Office has dealt with this fair business offer from fair business men it is impossible to avoid the conviction that there is a serious lack of businesslike capacity and breadth of view in that Department of Government. I am still prepared to establish a line of British steamers without any subsidy to carry the railway material from this country at two ports of loading to ports of delivery in East Africa, at the coal rates to Aden plus 7s. 6d. per ton. The House should make it their business to see that British capital is not discouraged in this way, and that an offer made in good faith, and which cannot possibly have bad results, should either be accepted or exceedingly good reasons given for declining it.

SIR J. KENNAWAY ( Devon, Honiton

): The question of the continuance of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba has been before the House on two or three occasions lately. Shortly before the Recess, the honourable Member for Derbyshire had the first place on the Paper for a Motion in regard to the legal status of slavery. The exigencies of the public service did not permit of that Motion coming on, but had it done so, I was prepared to move an Amendment as follows— That in view of the small amount that has been claimed for compensation for freed slaves, and the disproportionate cost of the machinery for investigating claims, and the delay caused thereby in the progress of emancipation, a time in the near future should now be fixed after which these claims should not be allowed; and that the time is now arrived for the complete abolition of the status of slavery. In a former Debate which took place on the Appropriation Bill, it was stated that this question is one about which the country is getting impatient. I am not one of those who would for a moment minimise the great steps which have already been taken, and the anxiety which has been displayed by the Foreign Office to take measures which would gradually result in the ultimate abolition of slavery. When this question has come to the front, there has always been a difference of opinion as to the expediency or prudence of taking steps at once to abolish slavery, or by going on with gradual and tentative measures. These gradual and tentative measures have been tried for some time in Zanzibar and Pemba; but the time has arrived, I think, when the country expects that, considering our position in that part of the world, and considering that Great Britain is practically responsible for the appointment of the Sultan, and controls all he does, that there should be some further decisive steps taken, and that under the British flag, which is practically flying there, slavery should no longer be tolerated. I think it is a fact that at the present time there are something like 140,000 slaves in the two islands, and that during the period that these emancipation rules have been working, practically only 5,000 have received their liberty, some of these by entering into contracts with their masters. There are thus left behind 135,000 in a very doubtful posi- tion. Now, considering that according to previous decrees issued all children born of slaves are free, and that after a certain time slaves imported into the islands are free, it is a great question whether more than 9,000 or 10,000 of these slaves are legally held as slaves at all. The whole compensation paid in 12 months is little more than £1,000, whereas the cost of the administration machinery, and the salaries of officers, has been something like £8,000 or £9,000. The real question is whether we cannot pluck up courage and simply abolish the legal status of slavery altogether, as was done in India. An Act was passed in 1813 by the East India Company by which slavery was abolished. It was done in a quiet way, so that it created no disturbance, and it gradually came to the knowledge of both masters and servants when the masters found they could no longer call in the aid of the law to enforce the old rights against their slaves. The Act is very clear, and I need not trouble the House with its details. It simply consisted of four clauses, which denied any further right on the part of anyone to apply to the courts of law to take action as against a slave. What is the obstacle that stands in the way at the present time to complete emancipation? I think it is the construction of a dispatch or decree by Lord Kimberley in 1890, which said the status of the slaves should remain unchanged. But was it intended by that dispatch that the status of the slaves was to remain for ever? That seems to have been written into the construction of the dispatch; but it is a construction which I do not believe English people will be inclined to tolerate. The Government must move in the matter. We have an able Administrator in East Africa in the person of Sir Arthur Hardinge; and I think his great services call for some recognition on the part of Her Majesty's Government by moving him to some other post. His prepossessions on this question are rather an obstacle to progress; and if the Government would only grant him some honour elsewhere we might get forward with this question. I do not for one moment wish to bring any charges against the Government in this matter, for I believe they have been doing their best.

* MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)

The prospects of the slaves on the East Coast of Africa are rather more favourable than seems to be understood by my right honourable Friend the Member for Honi-ton. The law respecting slavery on the ten-mile strip of territory on the coast is the ordinary law common to all Mahom-medan countries, but that has been modified by various edicts issued by the local ruler, Seyyid Khalifa, by which all persons entering his dominions after 1889 are made free. Again, all children born after 1890 are free, and all slaves whose masters leave no children are also made free. The result is that out of a total population of 275,000 in the two provinces of Tanaland and Seyyidieh there are only 26,259 slaves. The action of these edicts has been to produce a great diminution in the number of the slave population; and Sir Arthur Hardinge contends, and contends truly, that under the operation of these edicts not only have a third of the slaves obtained their freedom since 1890, but he concludes that it seems almost certain that in less than another decade slavery will disappear as completely as villeinage from England, without any compensation to owners or general simultaneous manumission of slaves. Extracts which are given in "The Times" this morning from Sir Arthur Hardinge's latest report show that very considerable progress is being made in accordance with his previous anticipation. The question of Uganda has been raised, and I may he allowed to ask my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make any inquiry into the cause of the mutiny there? The matter has been referred to on more than one occasion this Session, but still there are questions in regard to the pay of the troops, in regard to transport, and also as to the principle on which the troops were called upon to serve on several of the expeditions, which have not yet been cleared up. I was surprised to find that before the date at which the mutiny in Uganda took place the, Zanzibari Askaris had their pay raised from six rupees a month to 11 rupees per month. That was at a time when the Uganda Rifles were receiving not more than four rupees a month. One would like to know when it was that the Foreign Office became aware of this striking contrast between the pay of the two different classes of troops. There is a very remarkable passage in "The Times" of the 23rd January, which has not been brought before the House. In that passage Mr. Berkeley explained that the arrears of pay of the Uganda Rifles was wholly attributable to the difficulties of transport, which could not possibly be made good. Now, in "The Times" it is stated that— If the precise statement made to us is correct the Administration cannot even shelter itself behind the difficulties of transport. This statement is that Mr. Brown, the local agent in Uganda of the well-known firm of Messrs. Smith, Mackensie and Co., of Zanzibar, offered to contract with the Administrator for the constant and regular supply of trade goods for the payment of the Soudanese, and that Mr. Berkeley declined the offer. Mr. Berkeley has the power to make contracts, and he might have given this offer of Mr. Brown's a trial. Of course, we know from other sources that a great many transport bullocks had died. Mr. Jackson told Reuter's agent that 500 or 600 transport bullocks had died of rinderpest, and that the mules had died partly owing to the carelessness and maltreatment of the Cape boys, who acted as sayces. The behaviour of these Cape boys is a subordinate point for inquiry. Referring to Major Macdonald's report of 9th December last year, it appears that donkeys ought to have been requisitioned. That is an experiment in the right direction, for donkeys are immune from certain ailments to which other beasts of burden are exposed. We have not yet had a quite satisfactory explanation of the reason why three of the companies of the Uganda Rifles who had undergone special hard work for months prior to the Juba expedition were sent on that expedition, which was especially distasteful to them. I should be very much obliged if the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he is disposed to make any inquiries on the subject, would tell us why the management of Uganda should not be transferred from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. Of course, it is quite clear that the Foreign Office can choose the officials as well as the Colonial Office. The War Office and the Board of Admiralty could doubtless make an equally good choice. It will all depend on the men you send, and not on the orders you give them. But it would be reasonable to suppose that the gentlemen at the Colonial Office would, from their training, experience, and study, be better able to deal with, and would act more effectively upon, the reports of the officers and officials by whomsoever sent.

* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford

I rise to make such reply as is necessary to the various speeches which have been made. At the same time it is very difficult to do so without trespassing on the indulgence of the House and repeating statements which I have made on previous occasions. We have already discussed this subject of East Africa on the Address, when it was raised by the right honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean; secondly, there was a discussion on the Supplementary Estimates which covered nearly all the points raised this evening; and again, a fortnight ago—a few days before the House adjourned—we had a discussion on slavery. On all the questions touched upon in the last four speeches I really think I have given the explanation which the Government has to offer, with the single exception of the question of a direct line of steamers, which has been so feelingly alluded to by the honourable and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs. I shall deal with that question first. My honourable and gallant Friend has given a long history of his dealings with the Foreign Office, which, I am afraid, have not been satisfactory to him. He was desirous of setting up a new steamship line, not by means of a subsidy, but he desired as an honest trader that preference should be given to British ships over those of any other Power. We are entirely in accord with the honourable and gallant Gentleman in his desire that as far as possible communication with our Colonies and Protectorates should be carried on by British ships. But in the proposal made by my honourable and gallant Friend there were one or two points left out of view. In the first place, it must not be considered for a moment that we are entirely dependent on foreign lines for communication with the Protectorates of East Africa. At this moment there are six lines of steamers. The British India Company have a monthly service between Mombasa and Delagoa Bay. The Union Steamship Company have a regular line from Capetown, and occasionally an extra service from Delagoa Bay. The Castle Mail Packet have a service, and the Mersey Company have a three-weekly service from Delagoa Bay. These four British lines have regular services with East Africa at the present moment, exclusive of two German services.

* COLONEL DENNY

Ail these British lines go round the South of Africa and are not available for shipping goods direct to Mombasa.

* MR. BRODRICK

Whether they go round the South of Africa or the North of Africa or not does not matter, provided they arrive at their destination, and the Foreign Office is willing to take advantage of them. Therefore, I do not think my honourable and gallant Friend has stated the case quite fairly when we are asked to decide between making use of a German line which is subsidised and establishing a new British line, for he spoke as if there was no British connection at all. My honourable and gallant Friend is anxious that the Government should make a contract with a line which would carry for a stated period all the railway materials which the Government have to send to East Africa, and that at the end of the period the terms should be reconsidered and put on a more advantageous footing. Nothing seems to be fairer than that, but nothing is more difficult than to assure the requisite amount of loading at a particular date, and the contractors would have to fill up the ship at whatever cost by a particular date.

* COLONEL DENNY

Not at all. All we asked was that whatever material was ready should be taken monthly; the balance of the loading would not be at the charge of the Government.

* MR. BRODRICK

The Government, if they are to avoid complaint, will find it necessary to keep as nearly as they possibly can only to the amount of tonnage specified. My next point is that our experience is that after arrangements have been made to form a line, and that line has not paid, it would be pleaded that a British line ought not to be allowed to go to the wall, and that a subsidy should be granted to it. Of course, that would involve a fight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is obvious that the Chancellor would say that he was not in the habit of granting subsidies for such a purpose. My honourable and gallant Friend seems to think that because the Foreign Office have not been able to do business with him, it does not know how to do business at all. That is the argument of the man who said that the pleasantest and wittiest man he ever found was the man who always agreed with him, but it does not justify my honourable and gallant Friend in speaking of the Foreign Office as not being a business office. If my honourable and gallant Friend likes to confer with me privately in regard to his proposals, I can promise him that I will have them looked into again, and see whether it is possible to do anything in the matter. At the same time, I do not think there is any argument before the House sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that it is necessary to make any sacrifice of money, seeing that there are already six lines of steamers serving the East Coast of Africa. With regard to the increase in the expenditure, that matter was fully explained upon a previous occasion, when the circumstances were fully laid before the House. It is quite obvious, as I pointed out upon a previous occasion, that the work of the Uganda Protectorate is one as to which there is no precedent to guide us. We were working at a great distance from our base; we were working in a country altogether unknown, except by the explorations of my honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth, and others, until a few years ago. In such an experimental occupation there must be mistakes. There are two classes of objectors to the Uganda policy and the administration of this protectorate. The first is the class represented by the honourable Member for Northampton who object altogether to expansion on principle; and the second class consists of honourable Gentlemen who are ready to face expansion, provided we can do it without expenditure and without risk. But it is impossible to enter upon expansion of that character upon such a limited liability, and expansion must mean expense. If you increase your dominions, you must necessarily increase danger. Difficulties have had to be faced in Uganda, and I do not think that the history of this Protectorate, if you look at it from first to last, at the present day, justifies us in feeling that we have thrown large sums of money away to no purpose. It is quite true, as will be seen from figures which I have given before, that between the three Protectorates and the expenditure on the railway we have spent up to now very nearly three millions of money since 1890. Of that amount more than half has been spent on the railway, and for that expenditure there is an asset of nearly 300 miles of line. I do not think that that is an unsatisfactory result, and I am quite sure that you may take any other great undertaking in Africa—take any of the undertakings carried out by the Chartered Company, or the Congo Free State, or our own earlier adventures in the Soudan—and you will not find so much has been achieved either by way of dominion, or civilisation, or of conquest for such a sum and within such a period. I do not think that the outlook is in any way unsatisfactory for the future. My right honourable Friend near me has again asked me to deal with the steps that are being taken in Zanzibar and Pemba with regard to slavery. The right honourable Gentleman has said that these gradual steps have been going on long enough, and he wants them to come to an end. At this moment steps for the freedom of slaves are going on as fast as the slaves themselves desire. They have the opportunity given them of going to the court and obtaining their freedom, and they have largely availed themselves of it, though to some extent they appear to abstain from exercising this right and have hung back. At this moment, at any rate, by a gradual process, we are changing the state of slavery into a state of freedom in Zanzibar and Pemba. My right honourable Friend says that out of 240,000 persons who are at present supposed to be slaves, not more than 10,000 are legally held, and the freeing of these slaves is going on by a gradual process. I was very sorry to hear my right honourable Friend suggest that Sir Arthur Hardinge's continuance at Zanzibar was an obstacle to progress in this matter. I believe that Sir Arthur Hardinge has loyally striven to carry out the orders transmitted to him at different times, and he has had a very difficult task to face. He has had to consider the general prosperity of the population committed to his charge, and it was absolutely necessary that he should keep the Government officials on good terms with the Arabs, who are themselves not rich men, and who, if the prosperity of the country is to continue, must have labour provided for them to carry on their industries. I believe that, generally speaking, Sir Arthur Hardinge has steered with considerable prudence through a very difficult period, and has shown great administrative capacity. I think the attacks which have been levelled against him have often been made in ignorance of the difficulties with which he has had to deal. Making allowance for this, I say that the progress of the East African Protectorate under Sir Arthur Hardinge has been satisfactory in past years, and that the receipts have increased and the expenditure has diminished. Those receipts are expected to increase further in the current financial year, and the expenditure will be kept strictly within limits. We do not intend to establish fresh posts, but we intend to administer the country which we have already taken up. We do not intend to send forth expeditions, with the single exception of Colonel Martyr's expedition, which is going out now, and which is on its way down the Nile. That expedition has already made considerable progress. The end which it is desired that this expedition should accomplish—namely, that of occupying the country and establishing posts, so as to connect Uganda with the advanced posts of Lord Kitchener's forces—has been practically achieved. There is now only a small strip of some 200 miles of river and unoccupied country between the last of the posts that has been established which will enable us to connect our possessions in British East Africa with the Soudan. I think in that respect, quite apart altogether from the promises of trade, that the policy which has actuated both this Government and the last in undertaking the charge of this Protectorate in East Africa has been fully vindicated. I think that we cannot speak sufficiently highly of the efforts of those who have been in charge, when we con- sider the great difficulties which they have had to meet. Mr. Berkeley, the Administrator in Uganda, has suffered very severely in health in consequence of the strain laid upon him in that time, and he is now coming homo for a period of well-earned rest. We shall take care that the interests of the Protectorate do not suffer in his absence. We have fully determined that the posts which have been established and the centres which have been created shall be fully developed, and the administration there will be put on the best basis which it is possible to achieve both for the purposes of trade and for the humanising influences which surround British posts in Africa. I believe if the House will have a little patience, having regard to the difficulties which have been already surmounted, that we shall be able to show before a. very long time has passed that the advantages which were expected from these operations have been achieved; that the expenditure has been laid out at good interest; that the railway, which some honourable Members of this House appear to think is hanging back, is really advancing at the rate of over half a mile a day, and will, within the period anticipated, have been brought to completion. I believe that the work done by Great Britain in East Africa will compare not unfavourably with the work that we are doing in the Soudan and in South Africa in the civilising influences which have been brought to bear upon the population inhabiting those regions.

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

This Debate is marked by the fact that three speakers from the other side have criticised the Government in reference to the matter under discussion. The answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, as I understand him, that there should be a connection with British East Africa, and he seems to think that it is a matter of indifference whether we go round South Africa or by the Bed Sea to accomplish it. I confess that I do not consider that an adequate reply to the remarks made by the honourable Member opposite. I was not able to gather from the right honourable Gentleman's remarks that he made any reply to the speech of the honourable Member for St. Pancras, who seemed to point out the unfitness of those in charge to deal with difficult Colonial government such as we have had to. face in Uganda. The only point upon which I should like to ask a question is in reference to the speech of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire, whose remarks, I think, deserve the attention of the House, and deserve the consideration of the House in a higher degree than has been extended to them by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The right honourable Gentleman attacked the right honourable Baronet for suggesting in his speech that the time had come when the promotion of Sir Arthur Hardinge was desirable in the interests of British East Africa and of Zanzibar. Now, nothing can be further from our minds, so far as the official work of Sir Arthur Hardinge is concerned, than to depreciate his public services or his abilities, for which we have the highest respect. But undoubtedly upon this question of slavery ho holds an opinion so definite, so strong, and so frequently expressed in his dispatches which are laid before this House, that many of us entirely agree with what the honourable Baronet has said—that Sir Arthur Hardinge might be more usefully employed somewhere else than in this particular spot, where the abolition of the legal status of slavery is a matter which concerns the honour of this country. The Under Secretary has suggested at various times that we are proceeding steadily in the direction of the abolition of the legal status of slavery, and he seems to be under the impression that the Foreign Office have done as well as the Indian Government was able to do in its early days—distinguishing those early efforts from the Indian Penal Code. Upon this point the right honourable Gentleman has not expressed his views very clearly, and he appears to think that with regard to what has been done in Uganda we are in advance of India. Now, can we make an offer to the right honourable Gentleman? Will he undertake to establish in Zanzibar and in this coast strip of British East Africa the Indian Law of 1843? We will not ask him for the Indian Penal Code, but simply for the Indian Law of 1843, which was applied, I believe, not merely to British Dominions proper, but throughout the native States of India This is a law which Sir Arthur Hardinge's grandfather had to apply when he was Viceroy of India in 1844, when it was applied throughout India, not merely in British India, proper, but was applied throughout the whole of the Protectorates.

* MR. BRODRICK

dissented.

* SIR C. DILKE

The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head, but I have it on the authority of a gentleman who was one of the Commissioners in the native States at that time that they immediately applied in the States the Law of 1843, and I can only find one exception.

* MR. BRODRICK

I am informed, upon the highest authority, that this law was not so applied throughout the native states.

* SIR C. DILKE

I can speak positively on this matter with regard to two of our native States in India. Although there is one exception, it lasted only for a short time, and long before the Penal Code was applied to British India that had been put an end to in the native States. The right honourable Gentleman has repeated his remark in reply to some comments of the right honourable Baronet opposite, that the hands of the local Governor were tied by the promise we made on going into East Africa to observe the Mahommedan law. It is a very curious fact that Sir Arthur Hardinge himself has given us full information upon this question in an article which has been very recently published. I allude to the journal of the Society for the Study of Comparative Legislation, in which Sir Arthur Hardinge has written a, very able article, which I do not think has been very much noticed in this country, and to which I venture to draw the attention of the House. He states that— The Sultan of Zanzibar is bound to govern according to the Mahommedan religion. In practice, many of the enactments made under British pressure are a flat contradiction of the law of the Koran, and are, nevertheless, held to be constitutionally valid by the Mahommedan courts. I do not think that we ought to be more disposed to support the views of Sir Arthur Hardinge than he is himself. In India at the present moment, where there are 60 millions of Mahommedan subjects of the Queen, where they live under Mahommedan law, so far as the Indian Penal Code recognises that law— among the whole of these 60 millions of Mahommedan subjects there is not a single slave. Slavery in India has become extinct through the operation of the natural forces following upon the abolition of the legal status of slavery. Therefore I contend that the right honourable Baronet ought to have the support, of this House in asking, at all events, that the legal status of slavery should be put an end to; that there should be no recognition given to slavery in any of the courts under the British flag; and that we should apply in Zanzibar the, law of 1843, which absolutely abolished slavery in India,

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I did not know that the Debate upon this subject was coming to an end. I want to know from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs precisely what Uganda is, for I have never yet, been able to discover this. We knew exactly what it was when we took it over at first from the company, but since then Unyoro has been added to, our Protectorate, and it has not yet been made quite clear what is our position with regard to the Equatorial Province, and I should like to know if that is considered as a part of Uganda? As far as I understand, it is part of it at, the present time. When we went to the Soudan, and when, with Egypt, we acquired the Soudan, we laid it down that, with the Egyptian Government, we should be the joint owners, because we, had aided with our troops and our money in driving out the Khalifa, and in restoring to Egypt territory which originally belonged to it. But the Equatorial Province was part of Egypt, like the Soudan was, and I should like to know whether Egypt has relinquished its right in any sort of way to that territory, and, if not, do the English and the Egyptian flags float over this province? I think I am right in saying that we have not taken the slightest account of the original claim or right of Egypt, whatever it may be called, but we have calmly and deliberately annexed it to one of our own Protectorates, just as though this Egyptian right did not exist. If so, why should we do this in the case of Uganda and not do it in the case of the Soudan? I agree entirely with my honourable Friend opposite, that our original difficulty arose from our taking over these wretched Soudanese. These Soudanese—and I could quote from reports to show it—were regarded as the most disreputable and desperate set of scoundrels that ever existed, and the trouble arose when we took these men under the British flag; and ever since that time there have been rebellions on the part of the Soudanese, which I have no doubt have made our rule more obnoxious to the Ugandese themselves than it otherwise would have been. My honourable Friend pointed out as one of the reasons which got us into this trouble that we had no fixed frontier in regard to this Protectorate. Directly we acquired one portion we took action in some other part. Upon the slightest pretext we say that the tribes have misconducted themselves, and we send out expeditions which quarrel with the natives; we send out punitive expeditions against those natives, and in the end we increase our territory by a further large portion. This is the reason why I am asking precisely what the Uganda Protectorate is, and whether it includes the Equatorial Province. Another reason, which my honourable Friend did not urge so much, is this— we took over this enormous territory to govern, which costs a great deal of money. It costs us a great deal, but it does not cost nearly as much as what it ought to cost us if we want to establish there a sound government. It is absurd to suppose that with one regiment and 200 or 300 European officials you can establish a sound government and maintain order in a country which is probably as large as France, and in which you may have revolutions and revolts upon the least provocation. Where we allow the native' law to exist under our flag great wrongs are done to those who, I suppose, we are to call our fellow-subjects, and this is one of the reasons why I have always been against this expansion of our Empire, in which the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs glories so much as one of the noblest feats of modern civilisation. then the right honourable Gentleman told us that the receipts were increasing, and that the expenditure was going down. I really do not know how he makes that out. I see that the expenses were estimated to be about £40,000, but I see that last year the expenditure was nearly £400,000. I see that the Estimate for the coming year is, of course, not quite so large, but if we take the past year as a guide of what will take place, there seems no earthly reason why we should not have an expenditure of £400,000 per annum. How, then, can the right honourable Gentleman state that the expenses are going down, for they have gone up, and, in the very nature of things, in all probability, that expenditure will be maintained at its present high rate. Then the right honourable Gentleman says that the receipts have gone up in the whole of East Africa, but they have gone up naturally, because there is a certain amount of revenue conies in from those employed on the railway and the employees of the Government, who are spending money there on luxuries upon which they have to pay duty. If you take away the revenue derived from these sources I think you will find that the receipts have not gone up, and are not likely to go up. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to the question of slavery. I notice that whenever anybody alludes to slavery in this House that some Minister gets up and declares, in general terms, that it is the intention of the Government to put an end to slavery wherever the British flag waves, and that this House ought to assist him in doing it. But is this so in regard to the East African Protectorate or in regard to Uganda? I do not think it is. Take the case which occurred at Mombasa, for we had a lame explanation from the right honourable Gentleman in regard to that atrocious case of the girl who was taken before a court and sent back to slavery. I want to know, in regard to slavery on the coast line, what instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's officials there? We know that the Attorney-General laid it down that it is a crime for any official or any Englishman in any part of the world to aid or abet in restoring a British subject or a slave who has escaped to slavery. As far as I can understand the right honourable Gentleman's explanation, he has laid it down that when a. slave is brought before an English court, after escaping from his master, then the court may declare that that person is a slave. Of course, we know what will occur. The court declares that the person is a slave, and the court will enforce that decision, and oblige that person to go back to slavery. In any case, the officials of the court will in no sort of way interfere when that slave leaves the court and is laid hold of by his master and taken back into slavery. I have not yet found out what has become of that girl who was sent back to slavery to which I have alluded. Are she and her mother in slavery at the present moment? Surely, if these persons, as appears! to be the case from what we know, were restored to slavery by the action of the English court, and if it is true that any Englishman is guilty of a crime who aids and abets in restoring any person to slavery, we ought to know what is the position of these particular slaves. Are they with their master, or are they not? We ought to know what has been done in that case, and what is done in any other case when a master lays hands upon them and takes them back under his control. This state of things is monstrous, and it is made more monstrous after the Attorney-General has laid down what the law is, and it appears to me that our officials in that part of the world decline to act upon the law as laid down by the Secretary of State. This is so in Uganda, because I see in the Papers just laid before us that it is admitted in the policy of that country that the legal status of slavery is recognised. What our administration there precisely is it is difficult to understand. Suppose one of these persons under the legal status of slavery were to escape from his master and take refuge in the house of some Englishman. Would that master have a, right to go into that house and bring him back to slavery? Would he have a right to go to an English court— if there are English courts there, although I have not been able to understand whether there are or not —and insist that a man should be sent back to his master? Sir, I think we have a further duty to perform when we bring any of these new territories under the British flag, and that is, that we should declare that the legal status of slavery cannot exist under the British flag, and we ought to take measures to put an end in every sort of way to slavery. What is the explanation which the right honourable Gentleman gave just now? He was speaking, not of Uganda, I think, but of the coast line, and he said— The Arabs must have labour, and it is well that the English officials should keep on good terms with the Arabs. That is an absolute justification of slavery in those countries, and also an absolute justification of the action of our officials in recognising the status of slavery, and in giving practical effect to it.

* MR. BRODRICK

That was not my argument. My argument was that if there was a too rapid transition from slavery, the whole prosperity of the island would be at a standstill. At the present moment the slaves are making contracts with their masters, and they are going through a very gradual process of emancipation.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The gradual process of emancipation alluded to means that slavery will be abolished in about 30 or 40 years' time, and the right honourable Gentleman has not made his case any better by his explanation. He says that the island must prosper; that it only prospers under slavery, and, therefore, slavery is to continue until some further arrangement is made by which the necessary labour can be obtained. Why, that is precisely what was said in defence of the slave owners of the West Indies in this House! It was first declared that it was necessary that there should be slaves, and then it was said that it would take years and years to gradually abolish them. But the House did not take that view, and having come to the conclusion that slavery was indefensible under the British flag, we paid the price of the slaves. If the Government choose to go to those districts where the labour is slave labour, they must accept the consequences, and, no matter what happens, they must release at once those people from slavery. There are one or two things which I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman about in regard to the railway. As far as I can make out, these accounts go down to 1898 to the month of March. I do not think the right honourable Gentleman has stated what the precise amount is which has been spent up to March of the present year. The accounts state that in 1896, £962,000 were expended up to March, 1898, and I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he knows what the amount is which has been expended up to the present time, that is, up to March, 1899.

* MR. BRODRICK

The total amount spent up to 31st December, 1898, including cash balances in hand on the spot, is £1,726,000.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I understand that the railroad has been constructed up to a certain point where it was easy to make it, and comparatively inexpensive, but now it has reached a mountainous district, where the expenditure will be very much greater. If this is so, how can the right honourable Gentleman assert that the expenditure all round will not exceed the estimated cost of £3,000,000? Does the right honourable Gentleman say, or does he not say, that in all probability that amount of £3,000,000 sterling will be increased, and we shall have to spend a much larger amount upon this railway? Another point I should like some information upon is this: from the point which the railroad has now reached, it was originally intended that it should go to a bay on the north part of the lake near to Uganda. Has a change been made in the line, and has it been decided that instead of going to the north, that railroad, after having gone north-west, should take a southerly course, and reach the lake close by the German frontier? I believe that is the case, but I am not perfectly certain.

* MR. BRODRICK

That is so.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then, here is a wonderful thing. We agree to spend £3,000,000, and we have an official gentleman saying that £3,000,000 will be sufficient. When the railroad has gone through part of the country, then suddenly it is discovered that part of the service will be worthless, that it will involve an enormous expenditure to carry it out, and that it is necessary to diverge it to the south, close to the German frontier. By diverting the line in this manner it cannot be called a Uganda railroad, for Uganda is on the north side of the lake, and you go to the south with this railroad in order to save money, you had not the slightest idea that your surveys, which have cost £28,000, were worthless, and the Foreign Office absolutely knew so little about what it was doing that it decided to change the direction of this line after one-half of it had been actually constructed. We are in this position in regard to Uganda. It is a place which, in all probability, will produce nothing, and which will take nothing from us, in a general sense, for years. There may be some trifling business done, but generally speaking there will be nothing. We are told that it may grow like other parts of Central Africa have grown. But in those parts we have considered what articles can be grown, and whether they can be produced under conditions which will prove remunerative to persons growing them; but it can hardly be supposed, and, indeed, we cannot expect it, that any large body of colonists will go out to Uganda to live in such a bad climate to induce these African people to work for them. The whole thing is utterly absurd. I remember a speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, in which he stated that he was no great advocate either of the railway or the extension to Uganda. But somehow or other, we were the first to lay hands upon the country, and we have had to go into it, and in the end we got these useless, worthless, and expensive possessions. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting in his place, and he knows that he will have to provide a little extra money for the coming year. Now, I would point out to the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would do well to keep his colleagues in order, more particularly those at the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office. In Uganda at the present time we are spending about £600,000 upon the railway. It is perfectly true that we take that money from the Consolidated Fund, but we take it, all the same, out of our own pockets. Besides that, we are spending £400,000 in administering the country, and we are administering it in a most wretched way, shameful for us, and miserable to the inhabitants of that country. How very convenient that money would have come in to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment. I used to place strong reliance upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy, but I am bound to say that he has weakened of late in his financial views. He used to be a firm man, but he has been carried away by everybody telling him that he was firm, and instead of being firm against his colleagues he is now firm against us. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that if we continue to annex these countries the expenditure will go up, up, up I When we hear of posts being established to unite Uganda with the Soudan—why we should do this I do not know, for I have not the slightest notion—I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be called upon to provide money for that, and also to provide money for Lord Kitchener for what is going on in the Soudan. He will be called upon to provide money year after year for Uganda and Western Africa, and all these things cost money; and I am happy to say that I am not sorry to think that the right honourable Gentleman will, in all probability, either have to take from the Sinking Fund or raise money by new taxation. I want the British public to 'know that all this nonsense costs a good deal of money, and if this fact is brought home to the taxpayers of this country I am sure they will not be quite so pleased. I have never doubted for a moment that this policy of annexation would wreck itself upon the rock of finance. I am the more confirmed in that view by the feeling which is rising against it in our own country—-and I am bound to say that gentlemen who are Conservatives, and who are sufficiently enlightened to take the views which I do, and the majority of the Liberals throughout the country are taking the views that I hold on this question as to the great expenditure which this policy is involving—and we shall before long have a Liberal Party which will have no connection with the spirited Foreign Policy now pursued by honourable Gentlemen opposite and advocated by some honourable Gentlemen who were in office when a Liberal Government was in power, and we shall go back to those happy times when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came clown to this House and could say, "I am going to reduce the taxation instead of increasing it; and I am going to spend, notwithstanding this reduction, a greater amount of money upon education and upon home matters instead of wasting and fooling it away in wild schemes of annexation."

* MR. DUCKWORTH (Lancashire, Middleton)

I take a particular interest in the question of slavery, and it will be within the recollection of the House that just before leaving for the holidays I asked a Question upon this subject, which I put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the answer I received to that Question was not satisfactory, but was very unsatisfactory. I do not wish to make any strong remarks or do anything that will increase the difficulties of the right honourable Gentleman, but, at the same time, I do wish to emphasise the fact that there exists a strong and growing feeling in the country upon this question of slavery in East Africa. That feeling is growing stronger and stronger, and it is firmly believed that there has been unnecessary delay in freeing these people from their slavery. The feeling is that our officials out there have power to do more than they actually do in this matter, and that our principal official there, in fact, is out of sympathy with the ideas and the views which prevail to such a great extent in this country upon the question of slavery. I do not think that we have got to a state of things in this country in which the feelings which animated our forefathers in reference to slavery have died out. Our expansions have, no doubt, made the question more difficult, and I quite appreciate the argument used by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he asks us to have patience in this matter, for there are great difficulties, I have no doubt, in the way. But, as his predecessor in office once said when addressing the House in reference to the Indian frontier, a very great deal depends on the style of the man you send there, and I believe it is so in this case. I am afraid the style of the man, able as he may be, is not of that stamp which will render any kind of quick dispatch in this matter, for I am afraid he is out of sympathy altogether with what we desire and with what we believe to be right on this question of slavery. Now, the cases mentioned in the Question which I put to the right honourable Gentleman are so glaring that they have caused a feeling, amongst our own people especially, so strong because they feel that a great wrong has been done to those poor people who were sent back into slavery. Let me say that we have, in the denomination to which I belong, a missionary station there from which these people were taken. We have over 80,000 members, and our adherents total three or four times that number. We have been at this mission station for 35 years, and have spent large sums of money and lost very valuable lives there, and that place is very dear to these people. These poor people have been on the mission station for some 10 years, and had been free, but they were taken back into captivity again under what we say was a false pretence. I do not wish to press that view of the question too hardly upon the right honourable Gentleman, because the missionary who was on the spot at the time is on his way home, and I hope to hear from his own lips his version of this matter before I press it any further. I would, however, like to say that the feeling in this country against slavery is very strong, and there exists a feeling that by permitting this state of things under the British Flag you are doing a great moral wrong, and weakening that feeling against slavery which was so strong some years ago. I hope we are not right in this suspicion, but the continual delay and putting off of this question in our Protectorates, more especially in East Africa, is making people feel that our keen sense of the moral wrong of slavery is not so strong as it used to be, and that we are not actuated by the same determination to put an end to it which our forefathers were. I have no doubt this question will come up again, but I do trust that the moderate tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman this afternoon, and his request for patience in the matter, will be justified by events, and that the result will be satisfactory to the country at large.