HC Deb 09 December 1902 vol 116 cc501-36

Considered in Committee.

(in the Committee.)

[Mr. JEFFEREYS (Hampshire, N.) the Chair.]


In moving this Resolution in Committee, I beg first to call the attention of hon. Members to the memorandum on the subject which was presented two days ago, and which gives a very complete statement of the reasons why it is necesary for the Government to ask for more money. It begins with a short summary of the history of the railway, and it includes a memorandum by the managing member of the Uganda Railway Committee containing a comparative table shewing the original and the present Estimates, and an explanation of the reasons why the Estimate has had to be modified. That dispenses me from making any elaborate statement in detail, though I shall be quite willing and ready, so far as my powers allow, to answer any questions hon. Members may put to me on the subject. I may, however, make a few general remarks.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remind the House of the past history of the Uganda Railway, or that our presence in East Africa was dictated by considerations of trade expansion, by our hope to fulfill the mission of civilisation which has so long been the function of the British Imperial authorities, and by the position this country occupies in Africa, which requires that we should take our share in the development of that country. I have used the word "development." Any sensible man who owns property thinks it his duty to develop it, and there is nothing more essential in the development of a property than the making of proper communications. It follows almost as a matter of course that if we are right to be in East Africa at all we should make a railway. I challenge contradiction of this statement, that if we were to be in East Africa at all, sooner or later, being established as the controlling authority over this was tract, it was our duty and our interest also to make this railway. Hon. Members will remember that the vast majority of the House of Commons when the project was first proposed were in favour of making the railway forth with, and that it was at once entered upon. Great difficulties almost immediately showed themselves. In the first place, it was impossible to get the requisite labour on the continent of Africa, and an army of 20,000 labourers and artisans had to be transported from India in order to make the railway. In the second place, 600 miles of railway had to be made. The line passed through most difficult country. In its course it reached a point over 8,000 feet above the sea, and in the middle there was a formidable drop of 1,500 feet, which had taxed the ingenuity of our engineers to the very highest point. I may mention, in order to show the kind of country that this railway had to traverse, that there are no less than seventy-live viaducts, as distinct from bridges, and the Committee cannot be surprised to learn, therefore, that in all the circumstances the railway has been an expensive one to build. Including the present grant, if the House is good enough to give it us, it will have cost, in order to complete it, £5,550,000, the demand I am now making on the Committee being for £600,000. 1 ought to say here that as against that sum there is an asset in the shape of stores which are valued at about £150,000.

What the Committee will require me to justify is my demand for an increased sum over the estimate made in the early part of 1900. The details of the reasons are to be found in the Parliamentary Paper I have laid on the Table, but generally speaking I may say that it is due partly to causes over which the Government have no control, and partly, I. frankly admit, to mistakes which ought not to have occurred. The first cause was, I think, by far the largest. The line was begun in complete ignorance of the country through which it was to be made. There was not in 1900 even a complete or detailed survey with which to work out the quantities. Indeed, there was no material at that time with which to work them out. On the top of that came the great rise in the price of coal last year, which made an enormous difference in the cost. It was felt in almost all departments of the work. The coal rose in fact from 13s. to 27s., and freights from 22s. to 23s. Then there was the abnormally bad weather. For five months, to the end of September last, it rained continuously, and it began again at the latter end of October. We did not get fine weather until the 25th November. Thus the Committee will see the difficult conditions under which the latter part of the work was conducted. The circumstances were entirely beyond the control of those responsible for making the railway. It was not to be expected that the weather would be so bad as to make it impossible over large sections to do any work at all. All the time, the coolies brought from India had to be paid, and the additional expenditure consequent upon the bad weather is a very serious item indeed in the total cost. Then there is another item which must be taken into account, and of which the Government has no reason to be ashamed. So long as water could not be found in sufficient quantities, it, of course, had to be carried. The cost of carrying water was not a capital expenditure at all, but as water was discovered machinery had to be supplied, and the charge for that was thrown on capital expenditure. It is economy in the long run, but it makes it necessary to ask for a large sum. The Government were undoubtedly over-sanguine as to the time it would take to make the railway, and in generalising from the cost of the earlier portion of the railway to the cost of the whole, it turned out that the latter part of the railway further into the interior was more expensive to make, and that, of course, threw out the whole calculation, which was made on the average of the earlier months. Then, certain things were undoubtedly omitted which ought to have been included. Certain, works at headquarters were not estimated for, for which the money has to be found now. These are, roughly speaking, the general heads under which the greater part of the excess has occurred.

The Committee will ask whether, in the judgment of the Foreign Office, there will be any more expenditure. I am not going to enter into any engagement which I cannot fulfil, and 1 do not desire to deceive the House. It is perfectly possible, these works being what they are, that certain extra expenditure may be thrown on the country at a future date. It may be possible, and I hope it will be, that sources of water will become available in much greater quantities than at present. Work will be required to make them useful, and this will involve extra capital expenditure. If there is a necessity for that, the money will have to be found in the ordinary Estimates to be laid before this House. It would, there fore, be rash to say that there is an absolute certainty that other capital expenditure will not be incurred. On the other hand I ought to bring before the House and the country what they have got for their money. They have in the first place got a good article— a first-rate railway. People may differ as to whether a railway ought to be made at all, undoubtedly the money has been expended in producing a good article. That has been testified by several impartial observers. Sir G. Goldie, who enjoys a great reputation, visited the railway not long ago, and has stated that after seeing the line throughout practically its whole length, and visiting its fully-equipped workshops, stores, and other accessories, he has no hesitation in answering affirmatively the question whether there is intrinsic value in the railway in proportion to the capital expended upon it. Sir Harry Johnston, although perhaps not so absolutely an impartial authority as Sir George Goldie, also speaks in the highest terms of the railway. In expense of construction the railway compares favourably with the Cape Railway and that of Natal, the Uganda Railway having cost about, £9,500 a mile, as compared with rather over £10,000 in the case of the Cape Railway, and £11.000 in that of Natal. The gauge of the Uganda Railway is. I admit, three feet three inches, as against three feet six inches in the case of the other South African railways, but the difference in gauge, I am told, makes very little difference in the cost.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES () Swansea, District

What did you pay for the land?


I am informed that the land cost nothing in either case.


£20,000 is put down for it now.


I am not going to make any promise as to the prospects of the line. Trade there is now in its infancy, but the country is a very fertile one, and capitalists in England are showing a willingness to venture considerable sums on concessions which we are granting for trade. But I may say that the opinions of Sir George Goldie and Sir Harry Johnston are again favourable, the former saying he has not a shadow of doubt that ultimately the line will prove a sound commercial speculation, and the latter predicting that in ten years' time the railway will be returning a handsome profit on working expenses, which may enable the Government to pay back to the nation the original cost of its construction. The value of the railway, moreover, is not to be calculated only by its promise of a direct return. There is a considerable indirect economy, because all that is required for the development of the country is now so much more cheaply introduced. The cost of carriage as between porter-borne and railway-borne stores may, for example, be compared. The cost of carriage by caravan was 7s. 6d. per ton per mile; by rail it was from 2 1/4d. to 2 1/2d. The Committee will realise what an enormous difference that is. Applying that figure up to March 31st, 7,417 tons of Protectorate—that is Government—stores have been introduced at a cost of £57,000. Under the old system of carriage by porters, the cost would have been £552,000. The economy which will be caused by the railway is in fact almost incalculable. Without the railway, in fact, the development of our dominions there would have been impossible. With it everything was open to us. In the progress of administration and in the comfort of the people the railway will be an unexampled blessing. The journey from London to the capital of Uganda can now be made, according to Sir Harry Johnston, in twenty-four days, as compared with four months in former times, and the natives will be able to avail themselves of these great advantages when they go in quest of more profitable employment on the coast, or when they seek to sell their products. In fact, from the native point of view, the commercial advantage of the railway can not be, over-estimated.

I think that the Government have done nothing but their duty in pushing forward this railway. I regret, of course, that it should have cost as much as it has done, but provided we have got a good article for our money, that we confer these great blessings on the native population, and at the same time promote our own trade. I do not think the Committee ought to grudge the sum I am now asking. The reason why I am asking leave to introduce a Bill for a loan is that this course has always been adopted in regard to sums asked for this railway. It is only just that this method should be pursued, because this is in the nature of capital expenditure. The benefit of the expenditure will accrue to future taxpayers, and therefore the cost ought to be thrown partly upon them. The same method has been adopted in respect of other public works, such as military and naval works, and a precedent is also, I believe, to be found for it in the specific cable expenditure which was defrayed in the same way. This money is to be borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners on the security of terminable annuities payable in thirty years in the ordinary way. I move the Resolution, and I have only to add that, if further information is desired, I shall be happy to answer questions.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000 for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."—(Lord Cranborne.)


said the noble Lord had made a very clear statement, but he should like to remind him of the debate that took place a few sessions ago. The noble Lord's speech tonight was directed rather to the principle of the undertaking than to the details which they on this side of the House ventured to criticise. He had talked of the development of our dominions. If we did undertake the protectorate of Uganda it could be well understood that we had also to undertake the making of railways and roads, and many other things which were necessary to the effective support of our Empire and of good government in that region. The hon. Member said, in 1900, that he was in favour of the making of this railway, because we were practically committed to that or the giving up of the protectorate. Let them take that as their postulate in argumentation. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had forgotten that the point they were making was that the Foreign Office, in becoming a kind ot railway contractor, had been guilty of inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. That was the main burden of the opposition to the Bill of 1900. He did not know that it was expedient for him at present to enter upon the details of the mistakes of which the Government had been guilty in regard to the carrying out of this undertaking. He had, however, this complaint to make, and it might justify him for not talking at length at this stage of the Bill, that he had only had the "Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway, 1902," for two or three hours in his hand. That Paper was not signed by anybody, and it was only by a process of inference that he could assume it was laid before the House by the noble Lord. It was not sent to his house this morning with the other Papers.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out'£600,000,'and insert £500,000'"."—(Mr Brynmor Jones.)

Question proposed, "That ' £600,000' stand part of the Question."


If that is so I think the hon. Member has been very badly treated. It was in the Vote Office yesterday afternoon, and, of course, according to the ordinary practice it ought to have been circulated to hon. Members this morning. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say this much. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury had originally arranged that this matter should be taken on Wednesday, and if that arrangement had been carried out the hon. Gentleman would have had more time to consider the memoranda, but, owing to the exigencies of business, the adjourned debate was put down for today. My right hon. friend, when he altered the arrangement, said he hoped that hon. Gentleman would understand that he did so for the convenience of the House, and that they would not complain that they had lost the opportunity of considering the new business put down for today which they otherwise would have had.


said that, as far as the personal position of the noble Lord was concerned, the explanation he had given was absolutely right, but at the same time, when they remembered that the Session commenced in January, there was good cause to complain of the delay in the presentation of Papers. The Foreign Office made a great mistake when, in 1895, they undertook to carry out this business. There was an experienced firm of contractors ready to carry out the work at the rate of £3,500 per mile and, as a matter of fact, it had cost the country £9,000 per mile. If the Foreign Office would take on its shoulders this work of railway construction as well as other things appertaining to that office, it must expect to be severely criticised for its inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. The Foreign Office appointed a Committee, and he had followed every step taken by the Committee in so far as appeared from the printed documents which had been laid before the House. but, of course, these formed only a very little part of what must be at the disposal of the noble Lord. Colonel Gracey was appointed to go out in an independent manner and examine into the state of things.


He is a member of the Committee.


did not think Colonel Gracey was a member of the Committee. If he was a member of the Committee there had been no independent inspection at all. He understood that Colonel Gracey, who had had experience in India, was appointed as a kind of independent officer not concerned at all in regard to this matter. He was to go over what had already been done by the officers on the spot, and to test the accuracy of the estimates which had been already framed. Colonel Gracey went out, and in his report he made the most damaging criticism in regard to the work which had been done. He wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the question of inclined planes. The noble Lord had said that the railway was finished to Port Florence. As a matter of fact, he had reason to believe, for he had seen the figures, that the inclined planes were by no means finished. He was told by an hon. friend that the inclined planes were only temporary. This was not, perhaps, the occasion for going into engineering details, but he advised the noble Lord to give attention to the accounts for the construction of another African railway from Beira to Umtali, and he would find under every head of expenditure, the construction had been more efficient and cheaper, and quite as good a line had been the result. But the House never seemed able to get to the end of expenditure on this Uganda Railway; every two years a fresh account was opened. The construction of this railway was not a work for the Foreign Office to undertake, and the result had been extravavance and waste of money. As a protest, he moved a reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

(9.38.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

saqid it was unfortunate that a Department organised for negotiations and diplomatic business should embark upon the work of railway construction. He was not quite sure that they would be more successful in Uganda than they had been in Brussels. It was inconsiderate to keep back the information contained in the Papers until the day before debate; it was a growing practice which he hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to check so far as his Department was concerned. In the opinion of many hon. Members a sum of £600,000 was a fleabite, but he thought that it was a very large sum indeed. There was no notice in the Paper cirulated this morning of the sum to be asked for. Until a few minutes ago the House had no notion of what the sum was to be. He did not think any private person would be content to be dealt with in that wat, He regretted that they had not had a little more time to consider the proposal. He could not but remember Standing Order 62 of the House, which absolutely prescribed that when such a proposal was made the consideration of it should be postponed to a future day.


It is to go into Committee tomorrow.


said he was perfectly well aware that what was now being done had been usual of late years, but if the noble Lord would refer to the old journals of the House he would find that when such a proposal was made it postponed to a subsequent day appropriated for it under Standing Order 62. In this case a demand for £600,000 was flung at the House, and, then and there, it was asked to vote upon it. He thought that was a highly inconvenient method of procedure. In view of the large expenditure which had been incurred this £600,000 might be considered a very small matter, but it was a straw on the camel's back, and he must take some account of it. Moreover, this demand had to him a very serious aspect. This was the third time that the House had been asked for Supplies this year, and the present vote would necessitate the passing of another Appropriation Act. But it appeared to be easy for the Government to obtain moneyin these days. He pictured "youth at the prow and pleasure at the helm"—the Colonial Secretary in South Africa and the Prime Minister at the helm here. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no resistance. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had the appearance of a mastiff sitting on thecash-box showing his teeth to everyone who came near. There was nothing of the mastiff about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; there was more of the spaniel, he thought, for the right hon. Gentleman could not refuse anything, not even to the noble Lord and the Foreign Office, when accounts were presented such as no human being ever before looked at, and when reasons such as no human being ever before adduced were made in support of them. These accounts, if not so sad and pathetic, would be positively comic. When this matter was first raised they were told that the railway would cost £3,000,000, and would be one of the most valuable assets of the Empire. He predicted then that it would cost at least £6,000,000. It had already cost that amount, and the noble Lord with perfect frankness had told the House that it was possible that it might cost a great deal more. As to the future, the noble Lord could give them no information. He thought this a good article, as if it were a piece of haberdashery. The Public Accounts Committee had had trouble over the Uganda Railway accounts, but he was not going over the ground they had ploughed with so much assiduity and toil. The Paper which had been issued in regard to the Uganda Railway contained some remarkable statements. He should like to know whether the whole of it was by F. L. O Callaghan, or whether it was partly by the noble Lord.


My hon. friend knows that all the Papers laid before the House are passed by the Foreign Office, which is responsible for them.


said he had asked the information in regard to the authorship of the Paper in order that he might understand it a little better. The hon. Member called the attention of the House to the reasons set forth in the paragraphs (a) to (e) of the "Reasons for the figures in the Revised Estimate" on page 8 of the Paper. The noble Lord gave the House a fearful picture of five months' constant rain, and of everything and everybody being overwhelmed with water. It appeared, however, that if there was too much water at one time there was too much water at one time there was not enough at another. Why, having all this water, did they not keep some of it and use it? Was the rain in one part of the country and not another? ["Oh!" and laughter.] He really thought this was not a thing to jeer at. The Chief Engineer's estimate was plans were completed, therefore the data he relied upon were imperfect. Of course, when the Chief Engineer knew that he had git perfect data, he could work out his calculations to perfection! Then the Report went on to say that the Chief Engineer— took the cost of so much of the line as was then finished as a guide, and used the actual cost per mile of each main head of account, modifying the averages in some cases where his experience led him to believe the cost would differ materially from that in the past. Now here was the comment on that statement— Conditions being similar in all respects, this method gives fairly accurate results, but the actual condition proved not to be similar. Then, it was admitted that the Chief Engineer had very imperfect knowledge of climate conditions, which could only be determined after years of observation. The two years following the date of his estimate proved exceptionally wet. The gentleman never thought of these rains, or whether there would not be rain enough; and then to his surprise, during the year 1901, there was an unexpected loss of 100 working days. How were these working days lost? They were not thrown out of the calendar. The Report went on to say that— For 1900 a table of lost working days does not exist, but as the line was blocked for three months the amount would not be less. Why. they were not told. He would not go into this Memorandum further than that as to details. But, what did the Office say? 'This Office can only form a, surmise '' of the amount of the loss. That was the way the Foreign Office kept its accounts—by forming surmises! He was sorry to go into these matters, but In; had to do so because they illustrated the frame of mind in which the Foreign Office went into the construction of railways. At the bottom of page 10 of the Memoranda there was a reference to rolling stock, which stated that— In regard to the increase under this head, the figure of the original estimate was made in this office, and was less accurate than that made by the chief engineer. Then came this remarkable paragraph— The cost of repairs to rolling stock, due to accidental parting of trains, on the steep inclines, already incurred would have paid for a considerable portion of the cost of safety appliances.'' He could not follow these accounts, because they were in such a fearful muddle; and when he came to the explanations of the Foreign Office, he was lost in much greater confusion than ever. Whether the chief engineer was still out there making his poetical estimates for the construction of the railway, he did not know, and the noble Lord apparently could not tell them. It seemed to him to be a very sad and melancholy thing that the House of Commons should be asked again this year for a large sum of money for this railway, and for the third time to make a new Budget. It was still more sad that they should have such imperfect accounts, and, sadder still, that they should have such absurd explanations of them. He could only express the hope that the Foreign Office would leave off making wars and railways, and set themselves to learn how to write a despatch.


said that the House was not in a fit condition to discuss this Bill efficiently after the exhausting labours on the Education Bill. He asked, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at this or some other stage of the Bill make a statement of the various loans which had been indulged in for works that used to be borne on the Budget. As the noble Lord had told the House, they now voted loans for Army works, Navy works, public buildings, the Pacific Cable—all these were new—now they had a loan. for this Uganda railway. He was not at all opposed to the policy of these loans, provided full publicity was given to them in Parliament. They ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement of the amount of money they had to raise for these purposes. He shared the views of his hon, friend who had moved the reduction of the Vote that the Foreign Office was not a Department to carry on railway construction, or a war. Personally, he went much beyond his hon. friend. He had never been a partisan of the Uganda occupation. He did not believe that we had done any good to civilisation, or to the native population of that part of Africa, by going to Uganda. He knew that the extraordinary depopulation of the Unyiro Province was a disgrace to civilisation. If they could not make the West Indies pay, with all their advantages of soil and climate, he did not believe that they could ever make Uganda pay. He hoped, however, that this would be the last the House was to hear of the Uganda Railway.

MR. BAYLEY () Derbyshire, Chesterfield

said that this was a business matter, and the House was forgetting that the Foreign Office were carrying on a trading concern. What he wanted to know was—Who was responsible for the gauge of the Uganda railway being different from that of the railways either in South or North Africa, because the idea was that at some future time all these railways would be connected up. Proper engineering opinion ought to have been asked before deciding on that question of gauge. He noticed that general charges, including administration, amounted to £283,431; but so much were the Foreign Office out of their Estimates lor these general charges that they were now asking for £200,000 more. He did not see their friend the Crown Agent for the Colonies figuring in this matter. He should like to ask how much of that £200,000 was going to that old friend. The noble Lord had told them that he could not say what this railway was going to cost next year; but of the Gentlemen who called themselves by the extraordinary name of the Managing Members of the Uganda Rail-way Committee, he would like to know how many of them had any experience of English or Colonial railways? The gentleman who prepared these Memoranda stated that the cost of rolling stock to September 1899 Was £246,332, and that the cost of the locomotives and other rolling stock to be added would bring up the total to £455,707. There were thirty-six new American locomotives on order at a cost of £92,700, making an enormous total of 128 new engines in three years, together with several thousand trucks of different sorts, to run a train a day for 560 miles. Why there was sufficient rolling srock to run ten trains a day each way, thought there was no possibility of having traffic for such a service for vers! No business man would approve of such a thing. The noble Lord in his Memoranda was not quite correct in saying that the traffic earnings (including Protectorate stores but excluding railway stores) came to £80,797. That was not traffic earnings, but traffic receipts. The gross working expenditure, including maintenance and carriage of railway stores, was £378,891,so that it cost £378.891 to earn a traffic of £80,797. He was not at all sure whether they had got the proper water out in Uganda for the boilers of the locomotives, and it might be cheaper to convert the line into a tramway and run it with horse. The noble Lord had told the House that certain concessions had been given. He supposed these concessions had been paid for in some way. Could the noble Lord put these concessions on the Table of the House so that hon. Members cold see them before they voted this Bill? this was a most serious matter.


said that the concessions had nothing to do directly with the railway. He only mentioned the fact to illustrate his contention that there were a considerable number of persons who had confidence in the future of these territories.


said he would like to know the terms and conditions of these concessions and what the Government were to have in return for them. It was important to know whether there were any Englishmen going out to Uganda as farmers and settlers. If the Government went on in the extravagent way they had done in buying engines and rolling stock for a railway which had no traffic in the sense that English or South African railways had, where there was a large population at both ends, his impression was that they would require more than a million of money to carry on this Uganda railway as a working concern.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL () Yorkshire, N.R., Cleveland

said he did not see in the Memoranda any sum put down for the steamers on the victoria Nyanza. How was the cost of these steamers to be provided? He wanted some information as to the surplus stores, Which were estimated to be of the value of £160,000. Were they of a character to be used afterwards? In regard to the concessions he wished to ask: Were they granted for lands in the British East African Protectorate or in the Uganda Protectorate, or for both; and in what proportion were they distributed between Uganda and the British East Aftican Protectorate? When he was at Nairobi at the beginning of the year there were great complaints about the site on which that town was built, and a report was current that it would be necessary to remove it from the plain. Where drainage was impossible, to the adjacent hills. Was there any truth in this report, and was the expense of the removal included in the Vote which they were now discussing?


said the story of this railway was a very old one, and he did not think that much that was new had been put before the Committee on this occasion. They had become used to these extensions of the cost, and compared with previous demands the amount now asked for did not seem a very large one. It was quite hopeless to look at this matter as a commercial transaction.

When once we had gone to Uganda the railway clearly had to be made, and we did not go there as a commercial speculation. He did not think any one could put his finger on the precise reason why we went to Uganda or the precise moment when we decided to do so. European countries having decided to embark on the development of the African continent, it was impossible for this country to stand aside; but to say that we went to Uganda as a commercial speculation was entirely an inaccurate account of the matter. He thought the noble Lord was a little sanguine in saying that the money spent on the railway was capital locked up which was going to be profitable in the future, but he thought it would be long time before the railway paid its way. What they had to remember, he thought, was that a great deal of capital had been locked up in this undertaking, and that they had rather to make good what had been put in. They had got to develope the resources they had already got and not lock up more capital in Africa.

Attention called to the fact that there were not forty members present; House counted, and forty members being found present —


said the other point he wished to refer to was the fact of the under-estimate of the work. He did think that was a serious thing. It was one of the most notable instances of under-estimating cost that had ever come before the Committee. It was a dangerous thing that the cost of works like these should be so much underestimated, because, if the Committee got into the habit of treating with distrust the estimates put before them, they would become reluctant to vote money to embark on undertakings when the government asked for it. The under-estimate in this case was so serious that it ought to be a warning to the Foreign Office, and any other Department undertaking such works, to do their utmost to prevent any such case of under-estimating coming before the House of Commons again. They were told that weather was exceptional. So it was in every part of the world. But all such things would be allowed for by a contractor, and if he did not allow for them he would very soon become bankrupt. He trusted the noble Lord's statement was true, and that the railway would prove to be a good undertaking: but it certainly ought to be the object of the noble Lord to take the account he had had to give of the underestimating as a warning. The moral to be drawn from it was that the way in which the foreign Office had undertaken the making of this railway was not the right way. It was much better that railways should not be undertaken by government Departments. They had much better be put in the hands of business men. There was no doubt now that the railway had to be made, and, having been made, had to be paid for. That being so, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that steps would be taken to secure that the country was never again placed in the same position they had been placed in over and over again in regard to this matter.

(10.25.) MR. JOHN BURNS () Battersea

said he was one of the small number of Members in the House who opposed going to Uganda, and who always criticised the extravagant way in which estimates were formed, expenditure incurred, and money wasted; and so long as he was a Member of the House he would never lose an opportunity of protesting against the original sin, whether of a Conservative or a Liberal Government, of going to a place like Uganda for the flimsy reasons alleged by both Parties whenever this subject was up for discussion. He should like to congratulate the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat upon the chastened tone he had displayed, which contrasted very much with his previous utterances upon this subject. This was one of the worst of the crazy Imperial schemes into which in this this country had been misled during the last seven or eignt years. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly right when he said that it would be very difficult for them to say that we went to Uganda for a commercial reason. If they did go there for a commercial reason, that object would never be justified. He had read nearly every book which had been published upon this subject, and he was convinced that if Africa was to be civilsed and Imperialsed, in the best sense of the world, it was worth doing for England's sake: and if cilvilisation was worth supporting and extendidng in Aftica, he would rather that the honour should be Britain's than any other country, Of that he was convinced by a study of the subject following a year's experience in the Niger territory, and he also thought that under the guise of civilisation we should introduce habits and customs that would decimate the native population. This had been proved in the district to which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred. They would superimpose upon these people certain habits and customs that would more than counterbalance some of the supposed advantages of civilisation. They would seek to impose upon this subject people customs which were supposed to be in the interests of Imperialism and civilisation, but which were invariably in the interests of the military subjection of people who were better off without us than with us.

The right hon. Baronet had said that if we went to Uganda for commercial reasons they would not see their money back, and he also said that it would perhaps never be known why they went to Africa at all. He had read a well-informed article, which put the case in a nutshell as to why they went to Uganda, and the quotation he would now read was in his opinion the real reason— Putting aside the practical and optimistic statements in Sir Harvey Johnston's Report, the truth appears to be that Uganda is held for political purposes because it commands the head waters of the Nile, ensures the safety of Egypt to the south, and on the northern side of the Victoria Nyanxa will be the terminus of the Egyptian Railway. That was the real reason why we went to Uganda. We went to Uganda for political reasons with the idea of commanding the head waters of the Nile, and to secure a link in the Cape to Cairo railway communication. For a political will-o'-the-wisp there had been all this waste of money and human life, and misuse of energy in accordance with the expansionist doctrines of the new diplomacy. Solomon said, many centuries ago, "The fool hath his eyes in the ends of the earth." That was why we were in Uganda. England had got great ambitions, and they knew that Uganda was a wealthy country, and so statesmen thought it was their mission to have their eyes in the ends of the earth and thus waste money and dissipate the strength of this country. He believed that this £6,000,000 which the Uganda railway had cost up to date, might have been better spent in developing their home markets or in developing their trade in India, and in every other part of the British dominions, rather than in this plague spot which Uganda happened to be. Having decided to go to Uganda, they ought to have done it in a much better way. As a mechanical engineer, and as one who was a pioneer in Africa for the Royal Niger Company and a servant of the Colonial Secretary, he felt positively ashamed of the incapacity shown in the construction of this railway. A properly trained civil engineer and practical contractors would shave carried out plans for interchangeable links of line, but the Foreign Office had three converging links with dissimilar gauges, arid had already doubled their estimate of three millions. The Foreign Office had responded to a wave of Jingoism that synchronised with a full treasury, and this was the result. They had employed military men for civil work, without training, without knowledge of the country, or of the language of the Indian coolies, whose lives had been sacrificed by thousands. The noble Lord would probably think he was over-stating his case, but he would quote upon this point from the report of Sir G. Molesworth. What did he think about the officers who constructed this railway? He said— The officers are new to each other and to the country, and many of them are new to the language and character of the Indian coolie.'' When they knew that the lives of thousands of these poor Indian coolies had been sacrificed, as the reports showed when they remembered the way in which the cost had exceeded the original estimate, and when they saw the incompetency which had been displayed in the making of this railway, he thought they should at once insist that the Foreign Office should correct its habits and retrace its steps and get rid of this particular class of work altogether, if they were desirous of being known as practical business men. Now they had been told in a very optimistic way by Sir Henry Johnstone that this railway was likely to be profitable within ten years. A railway was not likely to be profitable when in 1902 the following report was made— The loss of small materials, fish-bolts, nuts, and keys. has amounted to as much as 50 per cent. due to the matives stealing these small articles. He notice that on papge 10 of the Paper relating to the Ugada Railway, the expenses of the staff quartes appeared. Althought those officers employed in the construction of this railway did not know the language and the habits of the coolies, they appeared to have got a good idea of the comfort and luxury which was necessary for the. He noticed that for staff uarters to the end of September, 1899, the sum of £75,505 was required, while to the end of May, 1901, the total was £215,117. He thouth the quarters for the officers were on such an extravagant scale as the conditions of life in that region did not warrant. With the refreshing candour which was typical of his distinguished father, the noble Lord had told them the short and simple annals of the poor Uganda Railway. but he must not imagine that he could explain a way the imcompetence which the noble Lord had dwelt. especially as regards the bad weather, were such as ought to have been foreseen, as they were the normal meteorological conditions in tropical Africa. He invited the noble Lord to coonsider seriously whether there ought not to be a change in policy with regard to the construction of this railway, or it it were persisted in, whether he should not call to his assistance the most able and experienced men he could command. There was no information as to the necesssity for voting more locomotives. Locomotives in Africa deterirated more quickly than human beings, because bad water would very quickly eat the heart out of the locomotivie, thus increasing greatly the cost of maintenance and repairs. If Parliament had made pu its mind to spend £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 upon this railway, let them pursue the line of least resistance, reduce the expenditure to a minimum and employ the best men. machinery, and organisers. He hope the Uganda railway would be an objectfesson to certain politicians, and he welcome the period of disillusiomment as to his project whih had now set in. In conclusion, he wished to tell the noble Lord that there was other places in the British Empire upon which he could have spent this £6,000,000 to better advabtage than in Uganda, Where everything would be wasted, with no good results to British trade, and which might Prove a curse to the very peole in whose interest the money was supposed to have been spent.


said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked him whether they were determined that this railway was to be made. They railway was made, and therefore there could be no question about it. They were quite aware of the kind of difficulty to which the hon. Member for Battersea had called attention. They knew perfectly well that locomotives deteriorate with bad water, and that this constituted one of the great difficulties in railway enterprise, because they often met with water which was unusable for that purpose. Hon. Members opposite had spoken of the mistakes they had made. Of course they had made mistakes. Anu contractor or Government or Government Department which undertook the making of railways in an unkown country was perfectly certain to make mistakes, and he felt sure that the House of Commons would be the last to judge the Government so harshly necaise, ostales jad neem, ade. He quite agreed with a very great deal that had been said, and althought he did not agree with all the criticisms, he did most fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this railway was never inended to be made, and had not been made, entirely for commercial resasons. Of couse he hoped that there would be some commercial return. It migtt he that the hon. Member for Battersea knew more than sir Harry johnstone about this matter, and it was possibel that the estimates for which he was responsible were too sanguine, but if that be so, all he could say was that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet on the Front Bench opposite that the railway in Uganda was not made for commercial reasons. The hon. Member said that if the railway had been built for benevolent reasons, he desired that Great Britain should be foremost in efforts of benevolence. But he failed to see the consistency of the hon Gentleman. Didthehon. Membersuppos that if we had not gone to East Africa it would have been left alone—that the natives of the country would have continued in a state of Arcadian simplicity? If the British Government had not gone then some other European Government would have gone there, and he was certain that the natives would prefer to be under the British Government than under any other Government. He belived that would command the assent of every hon. Member.


They would prefer their own government.


said that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. If he considered the condition of things which existed, he was confident that the hon. Member, who had a sympathetic mind, would not make such a statement. Before the white man went into those regions it was a history of lust, blood, robbery, and murder, and he did not agree with the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that we had been a curse to the people. On the contrary, though the country had been costly to the Government, he believed that when means of this great movements was written it would be conceded that we had brought, on the whole, nothing but the blessings of peace to the people. It was siade by the right hon. Baronet that the experience of the Uganda Railway should be a warning not a underestimate an engineering enterprise. He had never heard of an engineering enterprise which had not been under-estimated; it was almost the universal esperience of privatge gentlemen, as it was of public Departments of Government. What was the position? Estimates had to be made on the materials available, and he did not think that the HOuse would like the system of an estimate tol cover all possible contingeneies. A very large sum of money would be asked for. and when the Bill came to be paid it would be found that the Government had asked too much. Besides, such a system would almost certainly lead to the Lord Cranborne extravagance which hon. Member wished to avoid. the estimate must be made as accurately as it could be on the material available; there was no other means of doing it. No doubt they were making two bites at the cherry, but no more money would be spent than if the sum had been properly estimated at the beginning. Then, it was asked, why not make the railway by the assistance of a contractor? It was an old story, but the answer was that it was impossible. It was doubtful whether any contractor would have tendered for it.


asked if it were not a fac t that a contractor did tender, and offered a guarantee of a million sterling.


said he was not aware of that.


said it was in the noble Lord's office.


said that the subject was fully debated a year or ago, and no hon. Member was in explaining why contractors could not be employed than the hon. Gentleman himself. He would give the reason why a contractor could not have been employed. The railway had to made by coolie labour.


said he denied that. The noble Lord, in the debate two years ago, referred to the Beira Railway, on which native labour was employed: and there was not the slightest reason why a contractor should not have been entrusted with the Uganda Railway, and should not have employed native labour.


said he could not agree. The Beira Railway was the worst constructed railway in Africa.


said denied that.


said he did not know under what conditions the Beira Railway was made, but it had to lie renewed a few years afterwards. It was, however, impossible to make the Uganda Railway except by coolie laboui, and the Government of India would not allow coolies to be enlisted for I he work except by the British Government. Therefore, the Government had to make the railway; and that was his answer with reference to the contractor. As the lion. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn was not present, he would not trouble the Committee with an answer: to what the hon Gentleman had said. As to the gauge, he did not deny that he regretted the gauge was not 3ft.6in., but there were good resons at the time for having the meter gauge. It was not contemplated at the time that there would be a great development of railways in the future, and for many years to come the gauge was almost certain to be broken at the Great lakes. As to the steamers, they were paid for out of the votes in supply, and the money had been granted for them. They were in a forward condition; one was on the eve of being launched, and the framework of another had been set up. The criticiosm as to the sanitary condition of Nairobi was to a large extent well founded. A great deal of the township would have to be moved to higher ground, but that did not come under the Vote before the Committee. The size of the figures in the general charges had been remarked upon, but was explained by the over-sanguine estimate of the time it would take to make the railway; the longer the time, the larger the general charges. There were perhaps other reasons as well. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked as to terms of the concessions in Uganda and East Africa. That was a very fair question, but hardly on the present ocassoin. He would, however, engage to consider how far the terms could be given; and if the hon. Gentleman put a question on the paper, he would be happy to answer it. As to the stores, he thought they consisted partly of construction stock and partly of rolling stock; but he would ascertain, and inform the hon. Gentleman at the next stage. He had answered all the questions which had been put, and the did not know whether hon. Gentlemen desired to continue the discussion.

MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR () Cornwall, St. Austell

said that the question before the Committee was one in which he had taken a great deal of interest, and on which he had always found himself in a difficulty as to the votes he had given from time to time. He joined in the criticisms of his hon, friends in reard to the details of the expenditure on the Uganda Railway; and would not enter further into that part of the question. He wished, however, to indicate the main point, which, he thought, was constantly missed by the Foreign Office and by many hon. Gentlemen. They could not occupy all the waste places of the earth, as they had been in the habit of doing for twelve or fifteen years, absolutely without regard to what, was to follow after occupation. He had felt, ever since he entered the House, that the the nation and the foreign Office and the Colonial Office had not taken a business like view of the engagements they had entered into He had found himself at variance with certain of his hon. friends on account of the votes he had given, although they had been given by him on what appeared to him to be a most con sistent principle, viz., that they could notgo a particular point on the earth and occupy it, and then conclude that they would only have to bear the expenses of occupation,When they did that, they found themselves on a long, long road, of which they could not possibly see the end. He thought the House was being steadily drawn into all sorts of enterprises, of the results of which it had no conception when they were entered upon. What he was contending for was that the lesson of the Uganda Railway should be taken to heart by the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the whole House of Commons, as being a typical example of the cases in which they had gone to particular parts of the earth thinking they could occupy them at little expense and trouble, and had found themselves committed to vast expenditure, for which they werealtogether unprepared as the natural consequence of their having gone there. They could not, having gone to East Africa, divest themselves of the responsibilities they had undertaken, not to foreign nations or Governments, but to the aboriginal inhabitants. What had happened in Uganda? They had ruined whatever native Government, bad though it was, which was there.


A very good thing too.


said he was not defending the native Government; but, such as it was, it was ruined. They produced chaos; and, therefore, the character of this nation being what it was they had to restore order and set up another form of government. He was not quarrelling with the noble Lord for having gone to Uganda; but what he was complaining of was that the House of Commons and the country went to Uganda without the slightest idea of what they were doing. He did not think the noble Lord would say that when they went to East Africa they understood that they would be committed to the Uganda railway, and to the civilisation of that huge tract of country. He wished to say that in explanation of the many votes he had given, because he did not think that any Government—Liberal or Conservative—was going to learn anything from the Uganda railway. All Governments would continue to make similar mistakes. His own course was to consistently support such Votes as that before the Cornmittee once the House had made the initial mistake of going to the place at all. He hoped the Foreign Office and the House of Commons would onsider that, if they touched those wild territories at all, they incurred duties and responsibilities to the native races which they could not divest themselves of. He trusted that in future the Government and the House of Commons would take into account the huge responsibilities they took upon themselves when they went with light hearts to Such places, which looked so small on the surface of the earth, and regarding which they thought their duty was over when they were occupied. They had sufficient responsibilities all over the world to tax the power and strength of this country, and he hoped the example of this railway would be taken to heart. The Government ought to make quite sure that they had established good government in their own territory before there was any thought of further annexation or expansion in other directions. Before adopting such a policy they should make quite sure that they had done the best they possibly could for the welfare of the territory over which they had assumed responsibility.

(11.10.) MR. WEIR () Ross and Cromarty

said he was opposed to the policy of scuttling out of Uganda, a policy which (was sometimes advocated. He believed that would be an absolute calamity. They were now in possession of Uganda, and if Great Britain had not been in possession, the Germans and Portuguese would have been there. It was therefore better for the people that Britishers should be there instead of Germans or Portuguese. Would the people of Uganda be better oft'if they were left to themselves? lion. Members are no doubt aware that horrible acts of cruelty are perpetrated by the native chiefs upon the natives. It was a, blessing for those natives that a Power like Great Britain was there to protect them. He would not go into the questions raised in the Report, because the noble Lord had admitted that mistakes had been made, and he supposed there always would be mistakes in the opening up of such a country as Uganda. What he had risen for was to say how much he objected to the adoption of a policy of scuttling out of Uganda. Being in Uganda they should now stop there, and do the best they could for that country. This railway was essential, but he was disappointed at the bad management in regard to its construction. The noble Lord had stated that no contractor would have undertaken the construction of this line, but an hon. Member had already told them that some substantial firms would have willingly taken the contract. He considered that there was something very wrong at the Foreign Office in regard to the construction of this railway, and the noble Lord should look into the matter in order to see if it was not being managed by a number of incompetent men. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea had spoken about the nuts and bolts which were stolen by the natives. Of course, they expected a certain amount of that kind of thing, but the discipline must have been bad, or probably there was none, otherwise there would not be such an enormous loss. The noble Lord had stated that there had been some difficulty in getting out the quantities.


The survey was not completed at the time, and therefore it was not possible to get out quantities.


thought it was a very bad system that the Foreign Oftice should undertake the construction of the railway at all, and it would have been far better if a contractor had taken the work in hand Two years ago the noble Lord told them what a charming country Uganda was, and said it resembled Scotland with its mountains, its lochs, and its moors. They had just heard about the scarcity of water in Uganda, but he would remind the noble Lord that there was no scarcity of water in Scotland. He thought it would be a good thing if the noble Lord would go to Uganda, and then he would be able to tell the Committee whether it was really a Country of the desirable character which he represented it to be two years ago, His object in rising was ot emphasise the fact that as they were now in possession of Uganda they should stop there, but they ought to be more careful in the expenditure of money. he hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell something about the progress of the railway northwards.

MR. LOUGH () Islington, W.

said that he would not trouble the Committee with the details about engines, and whether they should have a contractor or not, or whether the right gauge had been adopted. Those details were a little wearying, and he was content to leave them altogether alone. He thought the Government had fared very badly in the criticisms which had been made. No doubt his railway was as made as any such tremendous enterprise could have been done under the circumstances, and after all they must not forget that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were responsible for starting this railway. He thought it was time that some attempt should be made to grasp the great principles of this subject. He was glad to hear his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench remark that they would have to look at the principle of this matter very soon, and he invited the Goverment not to occupy other territories without having first had experience of Uganda. He asked the Government not to reply to their criticisms in such speeches as the noble Lord had made. The Government ought to grasp a little more boldly the great questions of policy which were involved, and they ought to know exactly what was going to happen. There had been a most beautiful book published by Sir Harry Johnston which Mr. Weir was beautifully illustrated and which would put anybody in possession of as many facts as ti was possible to get from any book on this subject. One part of the book was devoted to animal life and the other to the various tribes to be seen there. These might be interesting facts to those who kept the Zoological Gardens, but they wanted to get at something about the commerce of the country, in order that they might see what prospect there was for an investment. This question was treated in Sir IIarry Johnston's book in a very short chapter, in which the writer was perfectly candid. and in which he gave a most admirable summing up of the whole situation. He said that so far as mineral resources were concerned they had not discovered any so far. Then he proceeded to treat other great articles of commerce. He mentioned coffce, and said that a few pounds had been discovered and there was a good climate for its production in Uganda. How anyone could think that they could produce coffee in competition with other parts of the world he could not understand. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there were no passengers or goods to be carried, and was that the best thing the Government could tell the Committee as to the prospects of Uganda? Sir Harry Johnston's conclusion was that they must go on with this expenditure for about ten years, but he was not quite so much of a jingo in his talk as his hon. friend who had just sat down. He admitted that they must stay for ten years adn then he said their expenditure would have been something about £11,500,000 expanded upon the Protectorate altogether. What were they to get back? They were now asked to grant a further sum of £600,000, and it had been admitted that they would not get back a penny. Sir Harry Johnston had urged them to try and tempt a few colonists out there, and then he said this money should be capitalised, and the Colony should begin to pay interest upon it. It would be impossible to get any colonists to go out there upon such terms, and the whole burden of this expenditure would be a dead weight upon the Colony. It was quite time the Government took this matter seriously in hand. There was one figure which went right to the heart of the question. They had now spent £7,000,000 upon the Uganda railway.


No it is only £5,500,000 altogether.


said it would possibly be £7,000,000 before they had finished They had now spent £6,000.000, and they were getting no revenue from it. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there was no revenue to he obtained from Uganda. In sixty years of railway development in Ireland, the House of Commons had spent £3,000,000.


What Sir Harry Johnston says is that we shall begin to get our money back at the end of ten years.


said they had spent already in Uganda on railways twice as much as they had spent in Ireland, although in Ireland they had been reaping a revenue all the time. They were now spending £380,000 a year in Uganda, and the total amount that was coming for traffic, including all the Protectorate charges, was only £80,000, so that was a loss of £300,000 a year on the railway. If they were to stop in Uganda, he thought they should manage their business more economically. Last year the gross expenditure was £366,000, and this year it was £380,000. The amount granted in Ireland was £130,000 a year, so that in Uganda the sum was three times as much, although no taxation was collected at all in Uganda. He asked the Government to submit some bold policy to the House on Thursday next, because a loss of £300,000 a year was no joke. They were annually losing money in these unfortunate railway enterprises, from which he could see no good result at all likely to come. They should never mind morals and lessons, but they ought to be practical and make some sane proposal to the House. The prospects were bad this year, and the last year for which the figures were given was worse than the year before. The traffic, was not extended in proportion to the number of miles ot the line which had been completed, and although the capital expenditure was increasing, and also the annual expenditure, yet the traffic was diminishing. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the noble Lord to think over whether they could not hold out some word of hope to the poor taxpayers of this country. [Mr. RITCHIEdissented.] It was a common thing for right hon. Gentlemen to meet these arguments with a shake of the head, but he sincerely trusted that this expenditure in Uganda would rapidly diminish and that before long they would see some good result from what they had been doing there.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Morton, Aylmer
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute
Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)
Balcarres, Lord Flower, Ernest Nicol, Donald Ninan
Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey) Forster, Hennry William Palmer, Walter Salisbury
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W. Parkes, Ebenezer
Banbury,Sir Frederick George Garner, Ernest Percy, Earl
Bentrick, Lord Henry C. Godson,SirAugustusFrederick Plummer, Walter R.
Bignold, Arthur Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greville, Hon. Ronald pretyman, Ernest George
Bond, Edward Hamilton, RtHn LordG.(Mid'x Purvis, Robert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Harris, Frederick Leverton Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Henderson, Sir Alexander Round, Rt.Hon. James
Brothernton, Edward Allen Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Butcher, John George Johnston, Heywood Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire Kemp, George Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Charrington, Spencer Lawerence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lawson, John Grant Thornton, Percy M.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Valentia, Viscount
Cranborne, Viscount Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Crossley, Sir Savile Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.,N.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Macdona, John Cumming
Dickson, Charles Scott Maconochie, A. W.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Milvain, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Doughty, George Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sir Alexander Acland-
Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- Mosntagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.) Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.
Burns, John Levy, Maurice Tully, Jasper
Caldwell, Jemes Lough, Thomas Weir, Jemes Galloway
Crener, William Randal M'Kenua, Reginald
Fuller, J. M. F. Rigg, Rihchard TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Mr. Brynmor Jones and
Griftith, Ellis J. Shipman, Dr. John G. Mr. Thomas Bayley.

Original Qustion put, and agreed to

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000, for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."

(11.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 91; Notes, 14. (Division List No. 622.)

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.


in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th OCtober last, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock