Sitting of 31 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
HARWICH HARBOUR.
Paper [presented 30th May] to be printed. [No. 286.]
RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) 1895.
Return [presented 30th May] to be printed. [No. 287.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS) (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 11th February; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
EGYPT (No. 2, 1895).
Copy presented, of Reports by Mr. Villiers Stuart respecting the Progress of Re-organisation in Egypt since the British Occupation in 1882 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NEW WRIT FOR LANCASTER (NORTH LANCASHIRE, CHORLEY DIVISION).
Ordered—That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Lancaster (North Lancashire, Chorley Division), in the room of General Randle Joseph Feilden, C.M.G., deceased.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.
Return ordered,
"showing—(1) the number of persons employed in the Postal and Telegraph Service during each of the last five years; (2) the number of persons so employed charged during each of those years with theft or other crime; (3) the number of such persons convicted of such offences; and (4) the nature of the offence."—(Mr. Henniker Heaton).

GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
On the Order for the Adjourned Debate on the Motion [30th May],
"That, in the case of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time—"
MR. JAMES ROWLANDS, explained that he opposed the Motion on Thursday, not because he objected to the Bill, but because he and other hon Members held strong views upon the question of Suspension of Standing Orders. Those Orders were intended for the protection of the House, and whenever their suspension was proposed, some statement ought to be made in explanation of the reason why that proposal was made. He felt very strongly that a Standing Order ought not to be suspended without very good reason. He hoped that those responsible for private Bills would in the future take the precaution, when they wanted to suspend Standing Orders, to give some reason for adopting that course.
MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he would like to know whether any explanation was to be given. He quite agreed that these Standing Orders ought to be respected. Therefore, with a view to having an opportunity of properly considering the matter, he moved that the debate be adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion. This matter was not in the hands of the Board of Trade, but of the authorities of the House, and his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees would have been here to explain the matter had he known that any objection would be taken. He gathered from his right hon. Friend that there was no question of any importance involved in the Motion. The object of it was merely to enable the Bill to get to another place at an earlier date. It then became occasionally necessary to dispense with the Standing Orders or to relax them in a proper case. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion.
MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that under the circumstances he would withdraw his Motion, but he hoped that in future the House would have full explanations in these matters.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn, and Bill read 3°.

PROVISIONAL, ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 1°.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the counties of Buckingham, Cambridge, Essex, Oxford, Salop, Southampton, Stafford, Surrey, Warwick, West Suffolk, and the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire.—[Bill 299.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Dover, Fenton, Greetland, Hoddesdon, Lancaster, Leeds, Leigh, Salford, Swansea, and West Ham (two). —[Bill 300.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Chichester Incorporation, and the parish of St. George in the East (London).—[Bill 301.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bournemouth, Chichester, Dover, and Southampton.—[Bill 302.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Lewis M'Iver, esquire, for the Borough of Edinburgh (West Division).
AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES BILL.
On motion of Mr. Yerburgh, Bill to amend the law relating to Agricultural Tenancies. Presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 17th June, and to be printed. —[Bill 303.]
QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, SCOTLAND.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say whether any and what grant has been made to the Board of Manufactures in Scotland for the purposes of the National Gallery of Art there; what accumulations of this grant have been made by the Board, and for what purpose; and whether the grant was intended for the purchase of Old Masters, or for the benefit of the present School of Painters, or for what else?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): A grant has been made of £1,000 per annum for five years commencing in 1891–92, with freedom to accumulate the money. The present accumulations including interest amount to £3,000. They have been made for the purpose of acquiring one or more specially important and valuable pictures. There is no limitation as to the class of pictures upon which the grant may be expended, the Board as trustees of the gallery, being left unfettered in their choice.

  BORRISOLEIGH ROAD SESSION, COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that much loss and inconvenience was occasioned to certain road contractors, who travelled in some instances 15 miles in order to be present at the adjourned Road Session appointed to be held at Borrisoleigh, County Tipperary, on the 20th instant, and found that their business could not be transacted owing to the absence of Magistrates; and (2) whether, with a view to prevent the recurrence of such loss and inconvenience, he will consider the propriety of re-establishing the Road Session at Cappawhite?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The statements in first paragraph of question appear to

  725
  be accurate. It seems, however, that this is the first occasion on which no Magistrate attended, and that a similar non-attendance is unlikely to occur again. Cappawhite is not in a central position; it is consequently unsuitable, so I am informed, for Road Sessions. Under any circumstances, however, the fixing of places for the holding of Road Sessions is a matter for the Grand Jury, and it is for the parties interested to approach that body should a change be desired.

  WOOLWICH GUN FACTORIES.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that at the Royal Gun Factories at Woolwich double shift is being worked, the day-shift men working 53 hours per week and the night-shift men 57½ and will he explain why, seeing that these hours of labour are a violation of the eight-hours day understanding, the representations made by the men against these hours have been disregarded?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL, Hanley): Double shifts are being worked by a limited number of men in certain sections of the Royal Gun Factory, the hours being as stated in the question; but the class of work on which these men are employed was specifically exempted from the 48-hours week at the time of its introduction into the Ordnance factories generally. Representations have not been disregarded; on the contrary, a deputation on the subject was promptly received, and I am glad to be able to state that the men whom it will be necessary still to employ on day and night shifts will in both cases receive additional pay for the longer hours worked.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask whether the day-shift men are working 53 hours per week instead of 48?
  *MR. WOODALL: My hon. Friend will perfectly well understand that in certain kinds of work it is necessary that the machines should be employed continuously, and so the number of hours in this particular department have been longer than in the case of the ordinary work of the factory. But compensation is allowed to the men for the extra hours so worked.
  MR. ALLANasked how that was possible when there was a distinct understanding that the hours of work should be 48 per week. He would be glad to know what machines it was necessary to work 53 hours per week as against 48?
  *MR. WOODALL: I am told that in the boring of guns any interruption in the work may affect the boring and be prejudicial to the proper execution of the work, but I shall be glad to discuss the whole matter with my hon. Friend.
  MR. ALLAN: I wish particularly——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ROSCOMMON PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Captain Preston, R.M. of Lecarron, County Roscommon, Petty Sessions, on the 8th April, dismissed a case against Patrick Gannon for want of jurisdiction, after having on two former occasions fined him on the same evidence; and whether he will now return the fines formerly inflicted?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Captain Preston, R. M., informs me that he has examined the Order book for Lecarron Petty Sessions, and finds that on the 10th April (not 8th as stated in question) in a case of trespass, Leveridge v. Gannon, the Order was made—"No jurisdiction, bonâ fide question of title arising." There is no entry of any fine for trespass against Gannon at any of the previous Courts.

  POSTAL DELIVERY IN CLASHIGANNY, COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any representations have been made regarding a change recently effected in the delivery of letters in the Clashiganny (County Roscommon) District; and, whether he will direct a return to the former system if he finds it gives satisfaction to those most concerned?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I cannot find that any representations have been made to me regarding the change recently effected in the delivery

  727
  of letters in the Clashiganny District. But it has been represented to me that the official delivery in the district is not being effected with regularity and I have directed inquiry to be made on the subject. I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result in due course.

  RIGHT OF WAY AT SUTTON, COUNTY DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War does the deed of 1806, by which the Government acquired from Mr. Newcomen a right of way at Sutton, County Dublin, grant the lands absolutely to the Crown; and does the deed of 1893, by which the Government exchanged this right of way for another to Mr. Jameson, purport to convey the lands acquired by the Government in 1806 as if they were the absolute property of the Crown?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,: Yes, Sir, I am informed that the reply to both these questions is in the affirmative.

  BIRR BARRACKS.
  The following Question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BERNARD MOLLOY (King's County, Birr):—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the body of troops stationed at Birr Barracks have been withdrawn; and that these barracks, occupied since 1810 by a full complement of troops, are to be in future occupied only by a few men representing the depôt of the Leinster Regiment: If the attention of those responsible for this disuse of Birr Barracks has been drawn to the fact that the great portion of the business of Birr has grown up and become dependent on the occupation of these barracks, that the traders, trusting to the belief that Birr Barracks would continue to be occupied by troops, have invested their capital in the commercial arrangements necessary for the supply of these barracks, and that the withdrawal of the troops entails the loss of the capital so invested, and the loss of some £20,000 a-year to the town and neighbourhood of Birr; and if he will lay these facts before the military authorities, and use his influence in the direction of preventing so great an injury."
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would post pone the question.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can answer it now.
  MR. MOLLOY: No, I would rather not.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was decided in 1890, with the concurrence of the Irish Government, to withdraw the headquarters of an infantry battalion recently stationed at Birr, and it will not be replaced by another unless unexpected circumstances render it temporarily necessary to re-occupy the barrack. The depôt of the Leinster Regiment at present stationed there consists of four companies, and may, according to the requirements of the service, muster as many as 200, or even more, men. I would remind the hon. Member that the question of how much a neighbourhood is benefited by the presence of troops cannot be allowed to weigh in settling the stations to which they are allotted, which are governed by military reasons.

  POTATO CROP IN IRELAND.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a resolution of the Parsonstown Union, passed on 11th May, in reference to the potato failure and the heavy cost of procuring good seed potatoes; and, if he will make the necessary arrangements with the proper department for supplying sprayers and material and the funds for that purpose for use in the said Union?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I regret I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the similar inquiry addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for South Leitrim.
  In answer to a further question—
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, I do not know what funds the department have at their disposal that they could dispose of in the way suggested. If I can find any money lying idle which may be employed for this purpose I will see what can be done.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can find any money lying idle which he can appropriate for the benefit of the English farmer?

  MAGISTRATE CHARGED WITH DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. W. E. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Peter Fitzpatrick, J.P., County Monaghan, was arrested by the police on the 19th March, in the town of Newbliss, for being drunk in charge of a horse and trap, and that when his case was heard on 1st May, at the Newbliss Petty Sessions, four Magistrates from other districts, who had never attended Newbliss Petty Sessions before, were present; whether, notwithstanding that four witnesses swore that Mr. Fitzpatrick had been drunk and disorderly, the charge was dismissed by the majority of the Bench; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been drawn to the case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are generally as stated in the question. I will refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor, if, indeed, this has not already been done.
  In answer to a further question,
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid: We have no information as to how the majority of the Bench was made up on this occasion. I was told that two of the Magistrates were expressly appointed in order to attend this particular Petty Sessions, but I do not know whether it was on this particular occasion.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that out of seven Magistrates four came from a long distance, and had never attended the Sessions before?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had not received that information.

  BAILIEBOROUGH FAIR, IRELAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Peter Brady, who was prevented from selling his stock in Bailieborough Fair, on 16th May, by intimidation; by whose authority the charge against Patrick Carollan, of Virginia, for having committed an indictable offence, was withdrawn; and whether any steps have; been taken to protect Peter Brady in his legal rights?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware that a man named Peter Carroll was arrested by the police on a charge of intimidation towards Brady at Bailieborough Fair, held on the 6th instant, and that at Petty Sessions the case was dismissed without prejudice by a majority of the Bench. I am making further inquiry into the matter.

  IMPORTATION OF PRISON GOODS COMMITTEE.
  The following Question appeared on the Paper:—
  "Mr. Havelock Wilson,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the hon. Members for Central Sheffield and Bolton have tendered their resignation from the Importation of Prison Goods Committee; and, if he will state what reason these gentlemen have assigned for their resignation."
  The Question not being put,
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANsaid, it was hardly fair the Question should appear on the Paper and not be answered. With the permission of the Speaker he would put it, and ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could read the letter he had received.
  MR. BRYCE: I am quite willing to answer the question. I would read the letter, but I have not got it with me. But I can say that the hon. Member who asks the question and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield have written me a letter requesting to be excused from further attendance at this Committee, and they have this morning sent me a draft Report, but I have not had time to read it. I understand the reason they assign for asking to be excused from further attendance at the Committee is, that they conceive the Committee has taken sufficient evidence to enable it to make a Report. I believe, however, that is not the view of the other Members of the Committee.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: Would there be any objection to placing our Report on the Table of the House?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir, it would be entirely irregular.

  LIMERICK CLOTHING FACTORY
  MR. SAMUEL WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War—(1) whether the Limerick Clothing Factory have had renewed

  731
  unto them an order for the manufacture of 75,000 garments for the Army, and whether thay now hold any contract to supply Government clothing; (2) whether he is aware that this firm has been summoned and fined for neglecting to keep their premises in a sanitary condition, and also for working their girls during the dinner hour, which constitutes a breach, first of the Factory Acts, and secondly, the Fair Contract Resolution of 1891; and (3) whether, if these allegations are true, he will place himself in communication with the firm in question, with a view of compelling them to conform to the Resolutions of the House of Commons?
  *MR. WOODALL: There has been no renewal of any order to the Limerick Company, but they recently obtained a contract for making up certain garments for execution in the current year. No information as to the allegations in the second paragraph has reached the War Office. If it is shown that they are true, steps will be taken by the Department to insure compliance with the House of Commons Resolution of 1891.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution passed by the Balrothery Board of Guardians, county of Dublin, calling his attention to the necessity of reducing the rate of interest charged on loans made for the erection of labourers' cottages, and to his recently expressed intention to introduce an Amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, with a view of simplifying and cheapening the working of those enactments; whether he can hold out any hope that the promised Bill referred to will be introduced and pressed through its various stages in this House during the present Session; and whether he will be willing to advise a reduction of the rate of interest on the loans mentioned?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already stated that if a suitable opportunity should arise I would take the opportunity of introducing the promised Bill dealing with the Amendment of the Labourers Acts. As to the reduction on the rates of interest on loans under
  732
  these Acts, this is a matter for the Treasury, but I shall be prepared in the event of the Introduction of the Bill to consult that Department on the subject.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. T. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will now state the particulars of the power, dimensions, and draught of the mail boats intended to be provided under the new agreement with the Dublin Steam Packet Company for the Irish mail service; whether power will be reserved to the Postmaster General to fix and alter the times of arrival and departure of the steamers; and whether the terms of the agreement will soon be published?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The mail boats for the Irish Mail Service, under the new contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, are to be not less than 371 ft. in length, 40 ft. in breadth, with a depth from the spar deck of 29 ft. 3 in., and from the main deck of 20 ft. 9 in. The draft is to be 14 ft., and the horse-power 8,250. Power is reserved to the Postmaster General in the new contract, as in the old, to fix and alter the hours of departure from either side. Steps will be taken for the completion of the contract as soon as possible, and, when completed, it will be laid before the House of Commons for approval in the usual way. I was yesterday asked a question as to the accommodation to be provided for second class passengers, and I said that this did not form part of the contract, but that I understood the accommodation was to be at least as good as that in the present boats. I have been given to understand by the company that there will be, in consequence of the boats being larger under this contract, a substantial improvement in the accommodation for second class passengers.
  MR. SEXTON: Pending the laying of a copy of the contract on the Table of the House, is there any objection to publish a full memorandum of the terms of the agreement for the information of Members?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: I will consider that. I do not know that there would be any objection.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the difference in beam and draft between the two classes of vessels—the present vessels and the future?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot give the figures because I have not got them. As the hon. Member knows the present vessels are not all on the same lines. The Ireland is much larger than the other four vessels. The figures which I have mentioned show that the new vessels will be larger than the Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the new vessels are to be screw steamers, and as the present vessels are paddle steamers, on the question of steadiness is there any provision for increased beam with increased draft?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: As I have said I have not got the particulars with me. There is no doubt that the change from paddle to screw will give more accommodation, particularly deck accommodation. I think the beam and draft will be larger than the present vessels.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: What will be the speed of the new boats?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: Those vessels are to do the passage between Holy head and Kingstown in half-an-hour shorter than the present passage. The hon. Gentleman can make the calculation himself. I should not like to say the speed, but I believe it is 22 knots an hour.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: Is the extra half-hour to be gained in the passage or partly by a quicker transfer of the luggage?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: The half-hour is to be gained in the passage, I understand.

  ARTILLERY TARGET PRACTICE IN PLYMOUTH SOUND.
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether notice of the proposed by-laws in respect of artillery target practice seaward in the vicinity of Plymouth Sound has been given to the Secretary of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, as suggested in the Report of the Departmental Committee on
  734
  Target Practice Seawards; and, if so, whether that Committee has offered any objection to their provisions; and whether, he will lay the proposed by-laws upon the Table of the House, as recommended by the Departmental Committee, so that opportunity may be given for an expression of opinion thereon?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The by-laws have been drawn up, and the General Officer commanding the Western District was instructed, on the 14th inst., to give the necessary notice by advertisement, as required by Act of Parliament, in order that all persons and bodies interested may have an opportunity of making objections. He was, at the same time, directed to communicate with the local Fisheries Committee on the subject. Until the result of these steps has been reported, further action regarding the approval of the by-laws cannot be taken.

  BOTANIC GARDENS, GLASNEVIN.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what has been done to redeem the promise made last year by him to inquire into the advisability of extending the hours during which the Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin, are open to the; public, and what reason there is for not keeping those gardens open all day as is done in the case of the People's Gardens, in the Phœnix Park?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. D. H. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): Some months ago I arranged that the Botanic Gardens should be open for some time longer in the summer than has hitherto been the case. I cannot supply the details at such short notice, but I shall be happy to furnish them to the hon. Gentleman if he so desires.

  TEACHERS' EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to allowing teachers to appeal against an adverse results examination, the

  735
  Commissioners of National Education would cause the examination roll, with the detailed marks filled in, to be returned to the manager and teacher soon after the examination, instead of after an interval of two months, which is the present practice?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Every effort will be made by the Commissioners to shorten, as far as practicable, the time for issuing the examination rolls to the school managers. These rolls contain the details of the pass marks of the pupils which have to be copied out in extenso from the marking papers of the Inspectors—a critical work requiring time. In some cases, owing to points calling for inquiry from Inspectors or Managers, it is not practicable to issue the detailed rolls sooner than six weeks or two months. It is to be observed, however, that the Inspectors furnish to the teachers immediately after the results examinations an indication of the pupils severally who have passed in the essential subjects.

  THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the telegraphic reports that Her Majesty's Mediterranean Fleet had been suddenly ordered from Alexandria to Beyrout were correct; and, if so, what was the reason for the order?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I only received notice after 12 o'clock, and I cannot give a reply without consulting the Admiralty.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he gave the hon. Baronet the earliest notice he could. He would only ask a general question which, perhaps, the hon. Baronet could answer at once. Were the House to understand that the movement of the fleet had not been made for any special political purpose.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether this voyage from Alexandria to Beyrout was not part of the pre-arranged summer cruise.
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot even say that without consulting the Admiralty.

ORDERS OF THE DA Y.
  SUPPLY, 30TH MAY.

    CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1895–6 (SECOND VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Resolution reported,
    "That a further sum not exceeding £5,310,050, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1896."
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean) moved to reduce the Vote by £3,000 in respect to Uganda, in order to call attention to affairs in that region. He remarked that there were two Uganda Votes included in the Vote on Account. One was for the ordinary expenditure in Uganda, and the other, Vote 7, was a special Vote for payment to the British East Africa Company. But that, having been ruled out of Order, had been struck out of the Vote on Account and postponed. That Vote would afford an opportunity for full discussion on points connected with the future government of Uganda, concerning which a statement had been promised in another place. The territory which it concerned was 800 miles in length from Mombasa to Uganda. That was the territory through which communications to Uganda took place, and those who desired the making of a railway to Uganda, would have an opportunity of discussing it. It had been stated in organs of the Press supposed to be well-informed as to the intentions of the Government, that a statement would be made on this question. He was surprised when it was stated that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would make the statement, for, in another place, it was said the statement would be made by the Leader of the House; and, considering the strong views the Leader of the House had expressed, it was only right that the statement should be made by him. Now, his own complaint on the matter he was raising was that the money voted last year for the ordinary

    737
    service of Uganda had been largely spent on matters, not only not contemplated by the House, but spent contrary to the intention of the House, and even to the promises made at the time the money was voted. Excellent Blue Books had been laid before the House with regard to the whole Uganda question. The last issues were almost entirely confined to details of repeated warlike expeditions to the neighbouring country of Unyoro, which lay outside the Uganda protectorate. He would not trouble the House by going into the past history of the relations between Uganda and Unyoro. In former Uganda Debates considerable reference had been made to the matter, which had been the subject of heated controversy between Captain Lugard on the one side, and Mr. Ashe, the missionary, on the other. Captain Lugard had published reports and also lectured on the subject, and Mr. Ashe had published two books in which he had gone into the whole history of the matter. The whole history of the question up to two years ago, put briefly, was that, while Kabarega had been on friendly term with Gordon, who had governed the Equatorial Provinces, since Gordon days he had been cut off from communition with white men, and when Captain Lugard went to Uganda disagreeable relations sprang up between Captain Lugard and some of the servants of the Company and Kabarega. Mr. Ashe's account of the rise of that controversy —which had led to repeated wars going on still—was this: Mr. Ashe said that the moment the British East Africa Company began operations in Uganda, and Captain Lugard made use of Emin Pasha's Sudanese troops, these scoundrels (which by universal confession they were) began to raid upon and terrorise Kabarega's kingdom. He would not go into the former history of the matter, but would deal with it as it appeared in a recent Blue Book (No. 7) of the present year. It contained a narration of the events of Captain Lugard's campaign of 1891, and it stated that Captain Lugard's policy was to establish a line of forts garrisoned by Sudanese troops, which cut off a certain portion of Unyoro from Kabarega's kingdom, and established another chief there. Captain Lugard
    738
    took away part of the country. The Blue Book said that—
    "Kabarega resented this, and hostility continued between his people and the Sudanese in the new forts. The Sudanese held their own with ease, but by their licence and misconduct alienated the natives in their neighbourhood."
    Therefore, it was admitted that the conduct of the Sudanese troops—of which strong language had been used by many observers—was the cause of sudden hostility on the part of Kabarega. Hostilities continued all through 1892. In the summer of 1892, the line of forts was wheeled forward and more territory cut off from Kabarega. In the autumn of 1892, Captain Williams, then in command of Uganda, sent a message to Kabarega demanding tribute in ivory. Kabarega's reply was unsatisfactory, and he said he could not make peace while the Sudanese harried his country. Mr. Grant was sent to report on the misconduct of the Sudanese. Mr. Grant's report, though showing that the original rumours were exaggerated, indicated that outrages had been committed by the Sudanese, who were in British employment and paid out of this vote, on the inhabitants of Kabarega's kingdom. At the end of 1893, Colonel Colvile sent a message to Kabarega. It was strong in its terms, and said that, when they heard that the Sudanese troops in the forts in the country cut off from Kabarega's kingdom were pressing the natives, Europeans were sent to stop this, but Kabarega's people more than once attacked them and killed a Sudanese officer. Colonel Colvile was certainly at the head of a very formidable force, and therefore was able to carry out his policy. He marched into Kabarega's territory with some 16,000 or 17,000 men, about 4,000 of whom were armed with guns or rifles. He seldom took part in discussions on Votes on Account, which he regarded as merely means for providing the Government with money to go on with; but in the present instance new matter had occured which demanded immediate notice. This very large force of course assured success, and Colonel Colvile went on to say that he —
    "determined to occupy a line between Kibiro and the Kafu ford, and to construct a chain of fortified posts between those places, thus cutting his kingdom in half."

    739
    That was the new policy that had been adopted in these regions. The whole point, therefore, was whether the military operations were such as were necessary for the protection of Uganda, and whether the territory could have been successfully held without them. Colonel Colvile went on to say:—
    "Major Owen had orders, if possible, either to surprise Kabarega or to drive him from that part of his territory, and was further instructed to proceed to Wadelai (30 miles distant), and there recruit a limited number of Emin Pasha's late troops, should any be remaining in the district, and should he succeed in obtaining a sufficient number to form a post at Magungu on his return. On Major Owen's departure, I at once commenced the construction of fortified posts at Kibiro and at Kitanwa, five miles distant, and commanding the food supply of the district."
    Colonel Colvile reported that—
    "British prestige had been vindicated in that part of Africa, by our prompt retaliation after Kabarega's unprovoked attacks on our ally, the King of Toro and on Usoga, the dependency of Uganda."
    Colonel Colvile went on to say—
    "Kabarega, the terror of this region, and the rebellious vassal of our ally, the King of Uganda, has been reduced to the position of a petty chieftain, his chief source of wealth, the salt mines of Kibiro, have been taken from him, while the south-western portion of his kingdom has been handed over to a confederation of friendly chiefs, from which he is cut off by our chain of forts."
    In July, 1894, Colonel Colvile sent out a fresh expedition under Captain Gibbs with the object of breaking Kabarega's power, and, if possible, either capturing him, bringing him to terms, or driving him out of his kingdom. Mr. Grant, who was with Captain Gibbs, said, that when they arrived at the junction of the Zezewa and Kiwa Rivers they found a very narrow strait with the water racing like a mill-stream. He continued:—
    "We paddled against this till our strength was all but exhausted, and seeing that we could make no headway, we decided to tie up for the night. While in the act of doing so, three canoes (one a very large one) crowded with people came down the stream. They were on us before we had hardly time to see them. They were not observed until within a few yards of us, owing to a curve in the river. I was on the right flank, and the large canoe came within a yard of me. I used my rifle to push myself clear, at the same time they received a withering fire
    740
    which disposed of them. They all disappeared, either shot or dropped into the water. It is impossible to say whether they meant to attack us or not; but we did not wait to ask any questions; I should say they probably did."
    The action of Her Majesty's Government upon Paper was all that could be desired. The Earl of Kimberley, writing to Colonel Colvile on the 23rd November, 1894, said:—
    "Her Majesty's Government have received with satisfaction the Reports of the success of the operations conducted by Captains Thruston and Gibb in Unyoro. These operations were evidently necessitated by the aggressive attitude of Kabarega and his followers towards the Protectorate. But I would impress upon you that the responsibilities which Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to the north of Lake Victoria are primarily connected with the Protectorate of Uganda as defined in recent Notices and Proclamations, and that you should be careful to keep your action within the limits of such measures as may be necessary for military reasons in order to provide for the defence and security of the Protectorate."
    He, therefore, could not object to the paper attitude that had been taken up by Her Majesty's Government, but he maintained that the Government agents on the spot had gone beyond the policy which that House would be prepared to sanction. Their policy was opposed to the promises which the Government had made in relation to this subject. Colonel Colvile went on to say—
    "It will be seen from the summary of the diary that Kabarega has at last attacked one of our forts, and been repulsed with heavy loss. I have waited for him to play this, his last, card, before making any overtures of peace to him, but as I now believe that he must be convinced of our strength, I have instructed Captain Thruston to communicate with him. He has, however, been so long and so persistently the enemy of the white man that I have no great hopes of his coming to terms."
    When was it that Kabarega became the enemy of the white man—certainly he was not the enemy of the white man 20 years ago. What had probably made him the enemy of the white man, if such he were, were proceedings of the character reported by Captain Thruston, who said—
    "The best way of assuring the security of the road is the depopulating of the country on each side of it, and I have hitherto only refrained from doing so as I thought that the inhabitants were more or less merely passive acquiescers in the hostilities, but now, as they have harboured Kabarega's parties, and have given information

    741
    as to our caravans, such altruism is out of the question, so I have this month, and will in future, vary the ordinary patrols by dispatching larger parties to sleep in the different cultivated districts, burn their bouses, destroy their crops, and cut down the banana plantations. This, I hope, will have a good effect, but I fear that the partial success of their last attempt may encourage the Wanyoro to further molestation of our caravans. The escort of these will, however, be increased, and be either under myself or a Soudanese Captain. Both the captains can be trusted to act vigorously on the offensive, if attacked, and are much more capable than British civilians, who do not know a word of Arabic, and absolutely refuse to make any attempt to learn. Raiding parties, consisting of a company, have during the month been sent to destroy the plantations at Katonga and Matama. These are large and populous districts, the former situated on the east and opposite the centre of the road to Barangwe, the latter about 12 miles down the Kafu from that place. An expedition against Uma was successfully carried out, and his crops were destroyed and his houses burnt. No serious opposition was met with, and it is expected that he will shortly ask for peace."
    Captain Thruston reported to Colonel Colvile as follows—
    "Before daybreak, on the 11th instant, I surprised Kabarega in his town at Machudi, near the Somerset Nile, and captured his cattle and all his property, and had it been a clear night, I should probably have taken him alive. As I had previously received instructions from you, that should I be fortunate enough to inflict a severe reverse, on him I should make overtures of peace, I have left for him a letter in Arabic, a translation of which I have the honour to attach. But I am informed that no military reverse, however severe, will be, sufficient to induce him to ask for peace, but that he will prefer exile among the Langus, to the east of the Nile, to submission to us. He has now crossed the river, where he will probably stay some time and possibly permanently, and in this latter case, as I am informed, he will at once lose his hold over his Chiefs, and they will gradually make their submission. If, however, in the course of the next few months, he either returns to Unyoro, or, in the event of his not doing so, his Chiefs do not desert him, then a small increase in the strength of our force in Unyoro and the establishment of a fort in the central district near Masindi, which would be made a base whence periodical expeditions (probably one or two would be made sufficient) could be dispatched, would insure the permanent exile of Kabarega from his kingdom, and the ultimate pacification of the country."
    This was what was termed the pacification of the country over which we did not even pretend to set up a protectorate. Captain Thruston went on to say to Kabarega—
    "If you wish for peace send one of your Sheikhs to me, and I will send him to Uganda to hear from the English Governor in that country
    742
    the conditions of peace. The first condition will be that you build your house in its former place near our fort at Mapala, and that you should become an obedient British subject. If you accept peace, then 'there shall be no fear or trouble for you,' but if you reject it the war shall be continued as long as you live."
    In a communication from the Foreign Office to Mr. Jackson, it was stated:—
    "His Lordship has noticed that in the terms of peace which Captain Thrushton offered to Kabarega, it is stated that the latter must become 'an obedient British subject.' I am to observe that no such condition of peace should be insisted on. Unyoro is outside the limits of the British Protectorate, and neither the Chief himself nor any of his subjects can be considered as under the protection, still less as the subjects, of Her Majesty."
    That was satisfactory, but it was not so satisfactory that the Foreign Office should previously have approved of this military expedition into the dominion of Kabarega. In the instructions to Colonel Colvile, they were distinctly told that Unyoro was outside the limits of the British Protectorate. No raids of any kind had taken place since we had been there. A line of forts had been created, and Kabarega had never been past that line of forts; the most he had ever done was to attack one of those forts when they was pushed into the heart of his territory. In conclusion, he was one of those who was hostile to the Uganda Protectorate; he believed that we were wasting our money there, and doing more harm than good. We were not really benefiting the cause of civilisation; we should never get back the money we had spent; and the European Powers were engaged in a wildgoose chase in these expeditions which they sent to the heart of Africa. It was no use our attempting to conduct warlike operations at a distance of 1,100 miles from the coast. We should have remained on the coast of Africa, and carried through treaties with the Portuguese, which would have given us the freedom to trade and missionary enterprise throughout their dominions. We had chosen to enter upon the other course, and they were obliged, more or less, now to adopt that view because it had been established by the House of Commons. He was not one of those who were disinclined that this country should assume heavy responsibilities; it was only the Central African policy that

    743
    he did not accept; but even if he accepted that policy, as regarded the Uganda Protectorate, he should still say that this Unyoro policy was a dangerous extension of it, one which had cost an enormous amount of human suffering, and allied us with native auxiliaries of whom we must feel ashamed.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick)said, he could not quite agree that the point of view from which the right hon. Baronet had spoken was really the true point of view which was warranted and justified by the history of the facts. The right hon. Baronet first of all dealt with the origin of Kabarega's hostility to the Uganda policy, and he told the House that he considered that hostility to have been provoked mainly by two causes, which were very closely connected—first, by the establishment of a system of forts by Captain Lugard some years ago, and by the garrisoning of those forts with Sudanese troops, who were left without European control, and whose acts were undoubtedly calculated to provoke the hostility of their neighbours. A point with which the right hon. Baronet did not deal was—that when Sir Gerald Portal went to Uganda he insisted upon the forts being withdrawn, and on the Sudanese being placed under the control of Europeans. Since that time the Sudanese had remained under the control of Europeans, and they had had no account from that part of Africa of further excesses committed by those Sudanese troops, one of whose qualities was that they were amenable to discipline as long as a European was over them. Assuming that the causes of Kabarega's hostility were those stated by the right hon. Baronet, they were removed by Sir Gerald Portal, but when they were removed did Kabarega's hostility cease? In the last Blue Book on Uganda it was stated:—
    "In September 1893, in accordance with Sir Gerald Portal's views, the garrisons of all the Unyoro forts were withdrawn into Uganda; some few Wanyoro, who were friendly and who feared Kabarega, were granted land in Uganda."
    Practically, Sir Gerald Portal did then what the right hon. Baronet was asking
    744
    that we should send imperative instructions to have done again at this moment. The result of withdrawing those forts at that time was so unsatisfactory, that he thought they ought to be cautious in interfering with the discretion of the authorities on the spot. "The withdrawal from the old forts," it was stated, "was considered by Kabarega as a victory," and, so far from having pacified him, Colonel Colvile found that there were frequent acts of aggression, and that the situation in fact was an impossible one. Colonel Colvile had stated:—
    "Kabarega's frequent previous acts of aggression, the death within our territory, at the hands of his troops, of our native officer Shukri Effendi in May last, the fact that he had kidnapped and still holds in slavery 20,000 Waganda subjects, that he had neglected for years past to pay the tribute due by him to the King of Uganda, that his capital is the only remaining great slave trade centre of this part of Africa"
    —which he thought of very great importance—"had long given good cause for forcibly bringing him to reason." He had summed that up by saying that Colonel Colville found the situation to be impossible. Some steps had to be taken, and the steps which were taken were the re-establishment of a line of forts, not exactly in the places of Captain Lugard's forts, but so placed as to be best calculated to prevent Kabarega from committing acts of hostility against Uganda. The ground on which the retention of those forts had been justified, was that they were necessary for the peace of Uganda itself, and their maintenance was still justified on that ground. If it did not clearly appear, from the information at their disposal, that they were necessary, he should still hesitate to send more peremptory instructions than had been sent already. The latest information that the Government had was that Kabarega had used a truce, which was granted him by Captain Thruston, simply as a blind, and that after having apparently accepted the truce he had again instigated certain bands of Unyoro people, numbering as many as 1,300, to raise two provinces of Uganda. The object of Kabarega in doing this was to break through the line of forts in order to establish communications with Arabs further south, from whom he could get large supplies of gunpowder. He had

    745
    not the least doubt that Kabarega wanted those supplies of gunpowder in order that they might be used in a way very disadvantageous to Uganda. They had not the slightest evidence that Kabarega's attitude would be more friendly in the future than it had been in the past. The right hon. Baronet had pointed out that in the terms offered to Kabarega by Captain Thruston certain conditions were made, among others that of becoming a British subject, which were not in accordance with the policy which had been laid down. So late as April 6, they had sent instructions that in the terms offered to Kabarega no such conditions should be insisted upon. The condition which must be insisted upon was that Kabarega should be a friendly neighbour to Uganda, and at present all the evidence at their disposal went to show that he was not willing to accept any such condition. On the contrary, he was still implacable, and he thought the utmost that could be done in the way of sending instructions to promote a peaceable settlement with Kabarega had been done, and until they had further evidence that the authorities on the spot could deal more leniently or by less aggressive measures than they had been obliged to undertake in the past, he thought it would be wrong to send further and stricter instructions than had already been sent. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would see that, as far as the present situation was concerned, the Government had kept faith with the House of Commons, and that they had guided their policy on the lines laid down last year. The Government trusted that the instructions they had laid down with the authorities on the spot would prove to be effective and satisfactory. It must be remembered that it took three mouths to communicate with our officials in Uganda, and therefore that it was unavoidable that much must be left to their discretion. The Government were confident, however, that the new Commissioner who had been appointed—a most able, experienced, and discreet officer—would do his utmost to act up to the letter of his instructions, and at the same time would do everything in his power to so administer the country as to insure peace and to promote its best interests.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL, wished to offer one or two remarks in reference to the Amendment. The explanation made by the hon. Baronet on behalf of the Government would, he believed, be regarded generally as very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had gone, in his very lucid speech, to the very root of our whole policy in Africa, but looking to the sparse attendance of hon. Members, and to the time of the Session, he did not think a question of such importance could be adequately debated that afternoon. Though therefore, he should not enter largely into the subject, he wished the House and the public to understand that there were some who took great interest in the question, but did not agree with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. When the occasion offered, he should like to point out that there was one important point on which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched, namely, the view taken or entertained as to the future social and material condition of the populations of the territories in question to be dealt with. The establishment of the line of forts and the flying columns that had been spoken of were, after all, really two indications that our administrations were carrying out the principles of the Brussels Act, and the regulations for the stoppage of the slave trade, and the amelioration of the condition of the nations. Those regulations were arrived at after mature consideration, and the forts and flying columns were only two means for promoting the desirable end referred to. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Colonel Colvile as if he acted simply under his Commission as a Major in the Guards. It was nothing of the kind. He acted under commission from Her Majesty to do great acts of State, and, judging from his own little personal experiences in similar circumstances, he did not think the language used by Colonel Colvile was at all inappropriate. On those occasions it was right and wise to speak the language of high State documents; in fact, it was the only way to make a proper impression on the native chiefs, and also on those Europeans, or semi-Europeans, who were always to be found near the chiefs as their advisers. Both the Under

    747
    Secretary and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had shown that we had arrived at this state of affairs in Uganda—we had crushed the power of the various chiefs and the opportunities of Kabarega to do evil, but we had not done what in honour we were bound to do—set up some efficient administration in place of that which we had destroyed. That must be the keynote of our future policy in Uganda. It was the only policy, he was confident, that the House of Commons would approve, and he trusted that in view of the great distance of the country, and the consequent difficulties and delay in communication, the Government would shortly take measures to facilitate that communication, and remove the difficulties of transit. He hoped the Government would pursue their policy in Uganda, until they joined hands with the civilised forces of Egypt, and established our influence over the whole watershed of the Nile. If they pushed forward with energy on the path they had adopted, they would certainly be working for the interests and advantage of this country and of East Africa alike.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, his views were very much in accord with those of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT laughed ironically. The hon. Member for Sheffield might laugh, but what he said was the fact, and he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that at least the right hon. Baronet spoke on the question with a knowledge of the facts and a knowledge of the geography of the country. He would yield to no one in readiness to give the money necessary for the work in Uganda if it were worth doing. But it was not worth doing, and we ought not to have had anything to do with it. Uganda was so far from the sea coast—1,100 miles and more—and it was so difficult to communicate with it, that under existing conditions, at all events, we should never get any
    748
    advantage from it. We had no need to be in Uganda, and in the way the Government had taken to get there they had acted contrary to all the traditions under which the Empire had been built up. The sea coast was our true basis of operations. In acquiring territory hitherto our practice had been to occupy the sea coast, and to leave it to the energy and enterprise of private individuals—acting independently of the Government, without orders and sometimes against orders—to push forward gradually further and further into the interior. That was the way we built up our Indian Empire. In that way, and in that way alone, had we been able to establish our sway over the whole of India. If we had begun to build up India in the way we were now pursuing with regard to Uganda, he ventured to say we should not have had in our possession to-day a shred of that Empire. If the object were to establish communication with the interior of East Africa, the far better course would have been to establish a line of communication from Suakin to Berber. To occupy Uganda for the purpose was to begin altogether at the wrong point The story told by the Under Secretary showed that our presence and action in Uganda would be surrounded by difficulties. In regard to the chain of forts, they had been told that after they were first established Sir G. Portal came to the decision to abandon them. They were abandoned, but Colonel Colvile subsequently resolved to re-occupy them; and they were now occupied and armed. Of course those forts would always be a running sore to the wild chieftains in and near such a country as Uganda, and the consequence would be that we should have to submit to our authority being defied every now and again, or to be continually extending our area of control, with the result of ever-increasing expenditure and responsibility. That was one of the dangers we should have to encounter, and of course the danger was greatly increased

    749
    by the distance of the country from the coast. How could such a large territory be properly governed at three months' distance from Downing Street? Our plan in the past in the acquisition of territory was first to occupy the coast, to work gradually inwards, and to keep communication open from the sea—not to make a Government or official job of the work, but to leave private individuals to work their way on by perseverance and commercial enterprise. Generally speaking, Government undertakings of this kind failed. We did not want to be in Uganda at all. The time had not arrived for us to go there; it might in a hundred years or so, but at present any expenditure in trying to establish ourselves there was a waste of public money. He had always looked on this Uganda adventure with the gravest apprehension. He believed it was an unwise and an unfortunate undertaking, and he should be glad to hear that means were on the point of being found which would enable us to retire from Uganda in an honourable way.
    SIR. TEMPLEthought it a waste of time to discuss whether we ought to be in Uganda or not. We were already there, and went there with the solemn consent and approval of Parliament, and we should have to remain there. It was merely beating the air, therefore, to talk over and over again about whether we ought or ought not to have gone there. The one and only question which now remained to consider was whether, being in Uganda, we should do our duty there. One thing was plain—that as we were in the country we were bound to exercise control in it. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had said, that our proper basis was on the sea coast. Well, so it was in this case, and he contended that the best and safest way of holding Uganda, and holding it with advantage to East Africa and to this country, was to construct a railway from Mombasa to
    750
    Uganda. As to our duty and responsibility in the matter, there were two reasons for occupying Uganda—the policy of acquiring control over the waters of the Nile, and the stoppage of the slave trade. These were the reasons why we ought to be in Uganda; and he had listened with satisfaction to what fell from the Under Secretary on the subject. He hoped the Government would not be deterred by the arguments of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean from pursuing the righteous course which they had adopted.
    MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he had always objected to the Uganda Votes, and he was glad to have an opportunity of supporting the Amendment. He did not believe the suppression of the slave trade had anything to do with this question. In any case, we could not go all over the world for the purpose of suppressing slavery. There was a good deal of slavery to put down in this country. When the Charter was granted to the British East Africa Company the House of Commons was distinctly told that it had no responsibility whatever. Were they to continue the policy of allowing chartered companies to start adventures of this sort, and then to take them over at the expense of the people, when every bit of evidence they had showed that they were of no good to us? At a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was refusing all grants in aid of the people of this country, we could not afford to spend the taxpayers' money in a wildgoose chase out in Africa. He was in favour of good honest colonial enterprise, but they knew that Europeans could not live and thrive in Uganda, and that except on the seaboard it would afford no opening for British trade. The continuation of this jingo policy must mean an expenditure of millions of money, and he regarded the Amendment as a protest against future expenditure of this kind. He was sorry that a Radical Government

    751
    should be carrying out enterprises which were supported by their opponents, and which they condemned in the strongest terms when they were in Opposition. He hoped a more reasonable and liberal policy would be adopted in reference to this matter.
    MR. W. P. BYLESdid not think any hon. Member could have listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment without having been greatly impressed by the very strong case which he made out. For his part, he could not understand how any English gentleman could listen to the story of the doings of those who represented us in Central Africa without a blush of shame Such incidents as the boat incident—to which, by the way, no reference whatever was made by the Under Secretary—ought to be made known far and wide in this land, and that men should know that our prancing pro-Consuls in Central Africa were doing these things in their name, and that the Government of this country was putting its hands into the pockets of the taxpayers to pay for such doings. A withering fire upon a boatload of innocent and unarmed natives, who were destroyed, dropped into the river, and so forth! And they were told by eminent authorities on the other side of the House that we were there, and must stay there and spend this money. He did not believe that we ever ought to have gone there, and thought the sooner we came away the better. The hon. Member for Kirkdale rejoiced that, since we had had influence in Uganda, we had destroyed the power of the Princes around. To his mind, that was the greatest condemnation of our African policy. If that policy were pursued, we must go forward until British influence was paramount all over Central Africa. The hon. Member said he did not believe the House would vote for any other policy. He might be right, but there were tens of thousands of voters in the country who did not
    752
    approve of that policy. If the working men of this country could have listened to that Debate, he did not believe that for a moment they would approve of this encroaching and aggrandising policy in Africa. His conscience would not allow him, whatever Government was in power, to vote this money for Uganda. He did not believe that the people whom he represented desired that the money should be spent in this way, and if the hon. Baronet went to a Division he should deem it his duty to support him.
    MR. J. G. WEIRdesired to lodge his protest against the policy of the Government on this question. What right had they to provide means to prop up a number of company-mongers who wished to carry on their enterprises in Central Africa? They could not get a shilling out of the Treasury for useful work in the Highlands of Scotland, and it was very hard lines to find these large sums voted for quite unnecessary purposes.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£5,310,050," and insert "£5,307,050."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    Question put, "That '£5,310,050' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 27.—(Division List, No. 119.)

    SOUTH AFRICA.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies two questions with regard to South African affairs. Before doing so, he had a word to say with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The hon. Member, and those who agreed with him laboured under a misconception and inability to see the great issues which depend upon the whole Uganda question. The hon. Member said he regarded Madagascar as of no importance to this country, and he said the same

    753
    thing in regard to Uganda. Now, what was the issue in regard to Uganda and our occupation there? It was the future of the whole of Central Africa, the control of the Nile Valley, and the ultimate establishment of a British Trans-African Empire. He was amazed that an hon. Gentleman like the Member for King's Lynn, who had a wide but rather superficial knowledge of many subjects, should show such ludicrous inability to see the important issues involved in this matter. He was sorry the hon. Member was not in his place to hear the exposure of the fallacies which underlay his views. His hon. Friend told them we should follow the analogy of India, but the occupation of Uganda had exactly followed that analogy. Our position in India grew out of the operations of our traders; our occupation of Uganda had grown out of the operations of our traders and missionaries. They were told that the true way of settling the Uganda question was by making a railway from Suakin to Berber, but those who made that suggestion overlooked one main factor, namely, that another great European Power was pressing on towards the upper waters of the Nile, and that the railway from Suakin to Berber, although it might develop the trade of the Soudan, would do nothing to prevent that great European Power from getting control over those important regions of the Upper Nile. With reference to recent events in the Transvaal, the Under Secretary was disposed to find fault with some of them for using the term "Boer Government," but he would remind him that it was Lord Kimberley himself who objected most strongly to the expression "South African Republic." He insisted on its being known as the Transvaal State, and it was only by the process of pushing, at which their friends the Boers were adepts, and by the process of surrender, at which Her Majesty's present Government were equally adepts, that the use of the term "South African Republic" had sprung up. He had tried to obtain
    754
    information in the usual way about the position of a well-known South African Chief who was threatened with practical extermination or slavery, but whenever any question was raised as to the dealings of the Boers with native races, they were invariably met by the answer that this was a matter of internal policy, and that we had no business to interfere with what the Transvaal authorities saw fit to do. Now, in giving that answer, the Under Secretary was oblivious of the obligations of both this country and the Boers with regard to the native races. He was amazed at the indifference of the humanitarian Radical section of the House to the fate of these unfortunate native races. When the Transvaal was transferred back to the Boers in 1880, the natives sent a unanimous delegation to protest against the transfer. This delegation represented 500,000 natives, and they were not satisfied even by an emphatic assurance that in a Convention their rights would be protected. This promise was confirmed in the Convention of 1881, but it had been a dead letter ever since. This assurance had not been carried out, and our native allies had been practically abandoned. When native chiefs endeavoured to see that their rights and the rights of their people were not invaded, they were subjected to brutal treatment by the Boers. This was the fate of the unfortunate Malaboch and his tribe in August, 1894. That Chief was unjustly taxed by a dishonest Boer Laiddrost. He and his tribe were ordered to move from their ancestral homes to the most unhealthy part of the Transvaal. They resisted, and after a gallant defence were overwhelmed. The survivors were then distributed throughout the Transvaal in a state of practical slavery. It was because Magato was threatened with the same sort of treatment that he was pressing for that information which he contended they had a right to receive on the subject. The Government had no right to tell them they would not ask for

    755
    information. No Government had ever before deliberately refused to give the House information on important questions of this kind, or taken the course of saying that they would not do so unless their representative in Pretoria saw fit first to send them such information. With regard to the position of the Swazis, he had brought their case before the House on more than one occasion and the Government had done everything they possibly could to avoid giving in formation and to prevent discussion The point he wished to bring before the House was this: The Convention of December 1894, by which that unfortunate people, our allies, were abandoned to their bitter enemies, had not yet been carried into effect. We were bound to the Swazis by the three Conventions, by their services to us, and by the solemn guarantee given Them by Sir Evelyn Wood. But we threw all these things to the winds and abandoned the Swazis to the Boers by the Convention of December 1894. But when that Convention was made the Government asserted in this House that they had taken precautions for the protection of the Swazis against injustice and robbery. The most important step that could have been taken for the protection of the Swazis would have been the formal delimitation and demarcation of their land, pasture and agricultural, and water rights, but no such step had been taken. An independent Commission, on which a British representative of high standing could have been placed, should have been sent to formally delimitate and mark out the rights of the Swazis. That had not been done. Moreover, it was of the utmost importance that a British officer of high position and standing should have been appointed in Swaziland to look after the interests of the Swazi people and report to this country. The Gentleman who had been so appointed was one against whom he did not wish to say anything, but he was not of that position
    756
    or rank that would be expected in a man filling such an important post. He was a Civil Service Clerk of inferior grade, or rather an Interpreter, and he was suddenly placed in a position of very critical importance in Swaziland. A British officer of high rank, Colonel Martin, with whom the Swazis were acquainted, and in whom they had confidence, was removed from his position, or rather he left it, being apparently unwilling to serve a day longer than he could help under a Government that had betrayed their allies. The second point he wished to raise was this: So far there had been no interference with the practical independence of the Swazis. So long as that was the case the Swazis would be satisfied. But that state of things might not last, and the least interference by the Boers with the rights of the Swazis, especially their grazing and water rights, would lead to desperate conflicts and cause great loss of life. The interview between the Swazi King and the Boer Generals was purely formal. The Boer proclamation had not been translated to the Swazis at the time. The King had steadily refused to accept the £1,000 monthly offered him by the Boers, because he regarded it as a kind of tribute. There was as yet no attempt by the Boers to exercise administration over the Swazis. The Swazis were just as determined as ever to maintain their independence, and they had emphatically refused to accept, or admit that they had accepted, Boer rule. He must ask the Under Secretary to give them an assurance that Her Majesty's Government would oppose the use by the Boers of force to interfere with the liberty and rights of the Swazis, and also to give them some information as to the steps that might have been taken, or be in contemplation, by the Boer Government against the Chief Magato and his tribe.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,
    757
    observed that he should only say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman, as he had had an opportunity of discussing this question on many previous occasions, and the hon. Gentleman had had a full opportunity of stating his views at great length during the present Session. With regard to the question of Magato, he was a chieftain within the territory of the South African Republic, and, being such, he was within the jurisdiction of the South African Republic, and we had no control over him. It would be the duty of the English Government, under certain conventions they had with the South African Republic, if any question arose with regard to the treatment of the natives which in any way infringed the conventions, to interfere in the matter, and they should do so. But it was not their duty wilfully and wantonly to interfere in the internal administration of the Transvaal. That was the position taken up by previous Governments, that was the position that had been taken up by the present Government, and no strong expressions on the part of the hon. Gentleman would induce them to depart from it. He was glad to believe, from the latest reports they had received, that Swaziland was at the present moment in a very peaceful condition. Their Acting Consul, Mr. Stewart, in a despatch received only the previous day, and dated April 26, stated that Swaziland had not been in such a peaceful state for the last twelve months, and the only thing that was at all likely to give rise to disturbance there, was the frequent attempts on the part of the hon. Gentleman in this House to disturb the amity between the Swazis and the Boers. He believed the Swazis were not going to take the hon. Gentleman's advice, and he trusted that they and the South African Republic would continue to act as they had done, with tact and discretion in this matter, and, if so, the Convention of 1894 would be carried through peacefully. He was sure that was the view of every Member of the House,
    758
    including, he hoped, the hon. Gentleman himself, for he could hardly believe that he, in spite of his inflammatory speeches, desired that there should be bloodshed or difficulties in regard to South Africa. The hon. Member stated that the Government had appointed as Acting-Consul in Swaziland a man who was not of sufficient rank to take up that position. The position, however, was a very simple one. After the Convention of 1894 was passed, and the new administration of Swaziland came into force, Colonel Martin, who had so well and efficiently represented the Government in Swaziland for many years past, desired, in the most natural course, his present position having come to an end, to obtain some other position and take up some other appointment. Colonel Martin desired, therefore, to retire from Swaziland, and it became necessary to appoint an Acting-Consul. The Government were anxious to obtain the services of a good and competent officer, and they thought that the final appointment had better stand over until Sir Hercules Robinson had arrived in the country. Under these circumstances Mr. Stewart was appointed Acting-Consul. The Government had full confidence in him, and he had done his work remarkably well. The hon. Member had told them that no officer in the English service could continue to serve under this cowardly Government. The hon. Member insinuated that Sir Henry Loch and Mr. Martin had retired to avoid serving under this Government. That was totally and absolutely untrue. That was all he had to say in regard to the speech of the hon. Member, and he did not think, at this period of the Session, after the many discussions they had had, that he need pursue the matter further.
    MR. T. M. HEALYcalled attention to the action of Mr. M. S. Constable, Her Majesty's Consul at Stockholm, in publishing in the "Fortnightly Review" an article on the political crisis in Sweden and Norway. He said that Mr. Constable was

    759
    a gentleman of considerable experience, who had represented that country in Russia and some other foreign countries, and therefore was not ignorant of the duties of a Consul. In spite of the fact that there was in existence a Foreign Office rule which prevented any gentleman holding the position of British Consul from writing in the Press on subjects of a controversial character or corresponding with private persons on public affairs, Mr. Constable had intervened in an acute manner in the exciting constitutional struggle which was going on between Norway and Sweden. He (Mr. Healy) did not propose to enter into the merits of the question, which he sincerely trusted would be settled in an amicable manner between the Swedes and the Norwegians. It was a matter of so much delicacy and gravity between the two countries that a Member of that House would not be justified in giving expression to his sympathies on the one side or the other. If that was the correct attitude for a Member of that House with regard to the question, what was to be said of a gentleman who was practically a member of Her Majesty's Government, drawing a salary for representing Her Majesty in one of those countries, taking an attitude hostile to Norway; and not only that, but doing so with every circumstance of bad judgment and misinformation. There was no subject on which the Norwegians were keener than the accusation that they were in league to surrender one of their northern ice-free ports to Russia in exchange for Russian help to attain separation from Sweden, and yet Mr. Constable, in the current number of the "Fortnightly Review," had written an article containing the following remarkable words:—
    "Although Russia during a period of 80 years has made no openly aggressive movement against Norway, she has, nevertheless, pursued her well known methods of preparing a way beforehand. She has done all within her power to encourage her subjects to emigrate into Norrland and settle there, with the result that there are at the present date considerable numbers of Russian Finns inhabiting the neighbourhood of
    760
    the Varanger. She has also, with the permission of Norway, bien entendu, constructed a railway which connects Russia with the eastern margin of the fjord. Should the Norwegian Separatists get their way, a step, and a very important one, would be gained by Russia. Members of the Party have before now openly advocated the surrender of the Varanger Fjord to Russia. It has even been suspected that they may have entered into negotiations with a view of ascertaining if Russia would be willing to lend them her support in their efforts to obtain a separation, and offering the fjord as the price to be paid for it."
    Russia was building no such railway, and consequently Norway could have given no sanction to the building of such a railway. The only railway that Russia was making was towards the Gulf of Bothnia, in an entirely opposite direction. It was not the first time that one of Her Majesty's Consuls to Sweden had come out in public in this way. Her Majesty's Consul at Gothenburg had taken a part which had got him into trouble with regard to the Gothenburg licensing system, with regard to which there was a long correspondence in The Times; but this being a purely social question, there was not much harm, perhaps, in this gentleman giving his views. What was Mr. Constable's explanation for his conduct? He wrote a letter, dated 7th May, which should not have been written by a gentleman in his position at all. He (Mr. Healy) did not see what business British Consuls had writing letters to the newspapers at all. If they had been wronged they should look for vindication to the heads of their Departments, and not rush into print. In the letter referred to, Mr. Constable stated that his authority for the statement that he made with regard to the construction of the railway was the London Spectator. Fancy a man in Stockholm stating that his authority for the assertion that this railway was being made was a London newspaper. Mr. Constable said, that the periodical had such a high reputation in England for carefulness and accuracy that he did not consider it necessary to make any inquiry into the matter. On the 24th of May, Mr. Constable sent a telegram

    761
    which put either himself or the editor of the Fortnightly Review in a distinctly unpleasant position. This was the telegram—
    "It is not unusual, neither is it forbidden by the English authorities, for British Consular Officers to publish articles in native periodicals concerning those countries to which they are accredited on the assumption, however, that they write anonymously, and do not give them an official stamp by attaching their names. Mr. Constable's name has been added to the article in question through a mistake on the part of the editor of the Fortnightly Review without Mr. Constable's authority or knowledge."
    He (Mr. Healy) did not propose to decide as between the editor of the Fortnightly Review and the British Consul, but looking at the form in which the article was signed, he was inclined to take rather the side of the editor. The article was signed "M. S. Constable," and in brackets and italics "Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Stockholm," and on the whole he was inclined to doubt that the editor of the Fortnightly Review forged the name of Mr. Constable or attached it without his authority. His (Mr. Healy's) object in rising was not merely to condemn this action on the part of Mr. Constable; it went a little further. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been good enough to state in his condemnation of the attitude of Mr. Constable that no apology had been demanded by the Norse people. The Norse people had no representative at the Court of St. James. It was a Swede who was their representative there; and, of course, it was impossible to expect that a Swedish Minister at London would demand an apology for an article written in the pro-Swedish sense and insulting to the Norwegian Parliamentary majority. He (Mr. Healy) thought it only fair that in justice to the Parliamentary majority in Norway, Mr. Constable should be requested to publish a letter to Her Majesty's Government or elsewhere retracting this entire article and apologising for having written it, and also apologising for its incorrect statements. This was an insult to the entire Nationalist Party in Norway, and while he thanked the hon. Baronet for the very fair way in which he had met the question, he thought the circumstances of
    762
    the case required a fuller statement, and he trusted the hon. Baronet would see his way to demand a more formal retractation and apology from the British Consul.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that, in answer to the allusion which was made incidentally respecting a Report on the Gothenburg system, published some time ago, he should like to say his impression was that a Report on the question was asked for because information was desired over here. He believed the Report was prepared with very great trouble and pains. Whether the view taken was right or wrong, it was a bonâ, fide view. They were continually asked to get information from abroad, sometimes upon more or less controversial subjects. All a Consul could do was to form his own opinion. As to the publication of the article in question by the Consul at Stockholm, he had already admitted that not only was it not wise, but it was not right, that officers in the Consular service should publish articles dealing with controversial matters in the countries in which they resided. They had already conveyed the intimation to the writer that the publication of the article was an indiscretion, and that it should not be repeated. They were also taking some steps to inquire into the accuracy of some particular statements made in the article. He was told that the Consular Officer in question had done very good work in the public service. At any rate, the hon. Member might rest content with the assurance that they had already pointed out the indiscretion and insisted that it must not be repeated.
    MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, there was a strong feeling that in the course of vivisection experiments cruelty was done to the animals operated upon. Doctors were believed to get callous as to these things, and not to take the same view as people outside. He did not make any complaint against the present inspectors, but he had to ask the Home Secretary whether he would allow persons who were interested in the matter to witness the operations carried on? If that were done the public would be assured as to whether there was any unnecessary cruelty or not. Until that was done he did not think people outside would be at all satisfied with the present

    763
    state of things. There was a great difference of opinion amongst doctors as to whether vivisection was useful. Parliament, however, had gone so far as to say there ought to be some supervision. He trusted that the supervision would be such as would give confidence to the public.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)said, he had no power to order that the public should be admitted to vivisection experiments. The experiments were carried on in private places, and he had no more right than his hon. Friend himself to go into those places. [Mr. ALPHEUS MORTON: "Your Inspector has."] The Inspector visited the places under Parliamentary authority, but neither the Inspector nor he had any authority to authorise anyone else to go there. The experiments were often of a very delicate nature, and could not be carried on properly if the operators were liable to be intruded upon at any moment by representatives of the public. When occasion arose, he would be glad to see the system of inspection was thoroughly efficient. At present there was no real ground for apprehending any cruelty to the animals, but if the hon. Member had any specific case to bring before him he would be quite prepared to inquire into it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that last year certain very grave charges were made against a school in Essex. Those charges were afterwards made the subject of Inquiry at the direction of the Home Secretary, arid the Inquiry resulted in the establishment, to a very great extent at least, of the charges. He was informed that the officer who was then in charge of the school was still in charge. He desired to know whether the money had been issued to the school, and whether, if the issue had not been made, it would be withheld until the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself that his own requirements had been met.
    MR. ASQUITHwas sorry the hon. Gentleman had not given him notice of the question. He was satisfied, however, that there had been a very great improvement in the condition of the school since the Inquiry was held. The school was inspected only the other day, with very satisfactory results. The
    764
    evils which had undoubtedly grown up had been put a stop to. In his judgment the responsibility for those evils rested quite as much with the Committee as with the superintendent; and there was now every chance of the school becoming prosperous and useful again.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Home Secretary whether he had any information about some of the Irish political prisoners. He was informed that some of them, notably Dr. Gallagher, were in a very serious state of health. It was a positive fact that there was a widespread feeling in many parts of Ireland that Dr. Gallagher had lost his mind. It would be satisfactory to the prisoner's friends and to a large section of the public if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had any special information with regard to Gallagher and another prisoner named Kent, whose condition had given rise to anxiety.
    MR. ASQUITHregretted that the hon. Gentleman had not given him notice of the question, because then he should have been very happy to make inquiry and to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the most recent information on the subject. That, of course, he could not do at a moment's notice. But, taking care, as he did, to keep himself constantly informed as to the physical condition of these prisoners, he could say that he did not think there was any foundation whatever for the suggestion of which the hon. Member had made himself the mouthpiece. He would make inquiries, however, and give the hon. Member the latest information after the recess.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that he was careful to guard himself from making the suggestion as his own. It was an opinion which was widely held in Ireland. He would address a question to the right hon. Gentleman after the recess.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House [30th May], Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without question put.
    House adjourned at Five minutes after Three o'clock till Monday, 10th June.