Sitting of 3 March 1898

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. LOUGH: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill for the construction of a new railway in the suburbs of London, and there are numerous provisions of a very drastic character in it dealing with areas and streets, taking them for building purposes in the neighbourhood of London, and a great many residences will be destroyed. There is a very elaborate clause in it dealing with the poor people who will be suppressed by the operation of the Act. The Company seeks power to build houses within a mile of houses they have destroyed, but that does not seem to me to be an adequate way of dealing with this difficulty. The business of a Railway Company is not so much to build houses for working people as it is to convey them, and there is nothing in this Bill as to facilities for so conveying them. You give these poor people a mile extra to walk to their work, and a mile back, but you do not say one word about increasing the facilities for reaching their work, and we know that there is a very strong feeling in this House that adequate provision should be made for the conveyance of the working men, and the poorer classes, into the centres of London to their work. I do
  442
  not propose, myself, now to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I have put down an instruction with regard to one of the points I have mentioned, and I have made a friendly arrangement with the Gentlemen on the other side that the matter may be dealt with on Tuesday next. I have since received an intimation that this instruction is out of order, but perhaps it may be that before Tuesday next I may be able to put one on the paper that will be in order; if so, there will be no further difficulty, as far as I am concerned, on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member in charge of this measure will at least give a favourable consideration to the question which I hope to raise further on by way of instruction.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed.

  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Motion put and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MAJOR F. C. RASCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I am very sorry to trouble hon. Members with a discussion on a Second Reading of a private Bill, because I know perfectly well how irksome and uninteresting discussions on Bills of this nature always are, and therefore, I will compress my remarks within the very smallest possible space consistent with my duty to my constituents. This Bill is promoted by the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway. It is a line which runs from Fenchurch Street in the City to Shoeburyness, and the line, with the exception of 25 miles, runs entirely through the division which I have the honour to represent, and therefore hon. Members will understand that my constituents and myself have an extensive and peculiar knowledge of the railway, and of everything connected with it. The Bill is of the usual railway Bill character.

  443
  It is an omnibus Bill, in which they take power to make level crossings, to go over roads, make connections and arrangements with other companies to build sea walls, and so on, and my constituents and myself hope that the House, having given to this line rights which it has misused so miserably in the past, will hesitate before they give them extended powers in the future, and I may say, from my own experience, that this line running, as it does, with the exception I have mentioned, through the whole of my constituency, there is not a man—not one single man—from whom I have inquired, from Rainham Marshes to the North Sea, who does not hope that the House of Commons will throw this Bill out. This is the wish of the men who live on the line. By whom is the Measure supported? It is supported by hon. Gentlemen in this House who know nothing whatever of the district, and have no interest, so far as I can see, with the line in any way whatever. The hon. Member for the Lichfield division of Staffordshire lives 100 miles from this district, and knows nothing whatever about the matter, excepting that the line runs through some portion of suburban property which happens to belong to him. Of course, in that case, he has a right to have something to say with regard to the Bill. The second name on the back of the Bill is that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Harwich division of Essex. He lives 20 miles away from this district; he knows nothing whatever about it, and he has no interest in it. His interest is that of being a director of the line, and I presume his interest is therefore the natural interest of a proprietor, and I venture to say to hon. Members that the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich will not be exercised for the benefit of the farmers, the working men, and the agricultural labourers who live along the line, but will be exercised in favour of the shareholders and the directors whom he represents. There is one other Gentleman's name on the back of the Bill, and that is the name of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Paddington. He knows nothing whatever about Essex, or about the country, and beyond being the contractor for the line, he knows nothing whatever about the district or
  444
  its wants. He is interested in the promotion of the line on the side of the Company, and not by any means on the side of the population whom I have the honour to represent. I do not wish to trouble the House of Commons with too many details. We have any amount of petitions and remonstrances against this Bill. There are many large towns situated on the route of this line, Southend, Grays, and so on. The Corporation of Southend has communicated with me, and desired me to respectfully inform the House that they have been endeavouring to make terms with reference to this Bill and cannot do so. The Company propose by this Bill to block up a private footway which is used by the whole of the inhabitants of Southend. The London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway wish to take this away entirely, and give no compensation for it whatever; not only no compensation but no compensating advantages. They have been endeavouring to induce the Company to do away with level crossings, and I may say that this is par excellence the line of level crossings. When this line was before Parliament, Parliament, in its wisdom, knowing that the line would run through an uninhabited stretch of country, allowed level crossings to be made all along the line, but now it is by no means an uninhabited stretch of country, for there are houses, factories, villages and farms, which make it as populous as any in England. The Corporation of Southend desire me to oppose this Bill in consequence of the level crossings which they have endeavoured to induce the Company to obviate, but, I regret to say, without the slightest effect. A man was killed on this level crossing a little while ago, and the Corporation wrote to the Company about it, and the reply of the Secretary was to the effect that if people got on to the level crossing when trains were approaching it was no fault of the Company if they were killed. That I characterise as a very unfeeling reply, and the only way to deal with people of that sort is to throw out their Bill when it comes before Parliament. Then, again, they are interfering with another of the local authorities at Tilbury. Tilbury Docks, as we all know, is rather an important place now-a-days, and by this Bill the London, Tilbury, and Southend

  445
  Railway Company propose, without the slightest compensation, to take away one of their slipways and make another of these objectionable crossings, and the inhabitants of Tilbury, through me, respectfully beg to submit to this House that if would be to their interest that the Bill should be thrown out. Then we come to the large manufacturing town of Grays. Grays is a town which did not exist 25 years ago, but now it has a population of 20,000 people. It is a purely manufacturing town, inhabited entirely by artisans. Grays is a place which is unknown to hon. Members on this side of the House, but it is particularly well-known to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, because they frequently come down in order to do myself and my constituents the honour of expressing their views. In this town of Grays the objection to this Bill is that the Company have absolutely refused to raise the height of their parapets to such an extent as will prevent the little children from falling over on to the line, which they have been constantly doing lately. In the centre of the town of Grays there is another level crossing, and every 10 minutes of the day for the whole of the 12 hours of the working day the traffic of this large town is knocked on the head in order to allow this Company to run their trains—simply in order to save the expenses of this Railway Company—a Railway Company whose shares hon. Members must bear in mind are at a premium of 30 per cent., and pay 6 per cent. dividends. Yet they will not put their hands into their pockets in order to make a subway and build a bridge. There is another instance. A very few miles away, at a place called Rainham, there is another of these level crossings, and there was an accident there, and when the Board of Trade communicated with the Company, asking them to substitute for the level crossing a bridge, the Secretary of the Company declined to do anything of the sort, and sent what I consider to be a most impertinent letter on the subject. I do not wish to pile up the agony, or to worry hon. Members into voting against this Bill. I will only say, in conclusion, that, of course, there are many other arguments which I could use. The rates on this line for agricultural produce are simply enormous, so much so that the Railway Company is, I am told.
  446
  going to reduce the charges which they have been in the habit of making. I will not refer to the insanitary sheds at the stations, or the dog-kennels which are provided for the working-classes who use this line to travel in. I know, Sir, full well that I am leading a forlorn hope. I know, Sir, that the railway interest in this House is omnipotent, and, although they quarrel very much among themselves, yet they are always ready to join hand in hand in order to protect the interests of each other. I suppose we shall have the opposition of the right hon. I Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and, I know, of course, that I am fighting a rich corporation, and I know that I stand in the position of Athanasius against the world. For all that, I should like to recapitulate what I have already said, that I really do represent the territory through which this railway passes. I know all about the district, and my constituents know all about it, and we desire that the House should not give the Bill a Second Reading. The constituents whom I represent here are for the most part agricultural labourers and artisans. They are poor men. Their local authorities are poor, and they cannot afford to pay lawyers to go before a Committee upstairs. All that we have to rely upon is my poor advocacy and the fairness and justice of this House of Commons. I beg, Sir, to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  COLONEL A. M. BROOKFIELDformally seconded the Motion by raising his hat.
  *MR. J. ROUND: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the fact of my being a director of this line will not prejudice me when I ask the House to take the ordinary course of sending this Bill, which is an omnibus Bill, before a Committee upstairs, where the several points which have been raised may be dealt with in the usual manner. My hon. Friend has made one of his usually effective speeches, and has made some strong statements, which I should like to reply to by the leave of the House. He has said that he does not know one single man in favour of this Bill—in fact, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman

  447
  said he did not know of a single man who would not bring every opposition to bear against it—but I have not heard of a single man express an opinion against the Second Reading of this Bill, excepting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Essex.
  MAJOR RASCH: I said there was not a single man from Rainham Marshes to the North Sea who did not object to the Bill.
  *MR. ROUND: I have not heard a single word of opposition either from Rainham Marshes or even from the North Sea. I think, Sir, that my hon. Friend describes the railway in very unfair terms. It is an old railway, with very large capital, and it serves a very important district, and I believe it has the lowest fares of any railway near London. This is a Bill brought in with the object of making certain improvements. Anybody who will look at it will see that that is the case. It also is a Bill which raises additional capital, and it also proposes to subscribe to a new undertaking—a Bill which was passed last Session for building a new railway from Bow to Whitechapel, and which will also assist in serving this important district. I gather that what my learned Friend wants is some crossings to be done away with, and some bridges built, for which this Bill does not provide. It does provide some, and if it does not go so far as my hon. Friend wishes, that is a matter which can be attended to in Committee, but which certainly does not justify his speaking so strongly against it as he has done. Of the two places that he has mentioned, and which he represents in this House, namely, Tilbury and Southend, Tilbury has not petitioned, and Southend has presented a petition. Why have the Corporation of Southend presented a petition? Because there is a question of the construction of a bridge over a level-crossing, and that, so far as I know, is all that there is between the Corporation of Southend and ourselves. It is merely a question of terms, and I submit that such questions as the question of the substitution of a bridge for a level-crossing are questions for the Committee upstairs, and I do submit. Sir, that the
  448
  House will take a very exceptional course if it does not allow this Bill to proceed upstairs and be examined there in the usual manner. I think my hon. Friend was rather unhappy in his description of my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire. He said that the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire knew nothing whatever about Essex. Why, there is no one who knows more about Essex than my hon. Friend. He is a member of the County Council, a resident in Essex, and possesses a large estate in that county. I do not think I need trouble the House with anything further. I submit that the ordinary form to take is to send this Bill upstairs, and I ask the House to do so in the usual manner.
  MR. T. C. T. WARNER: I am not myself in favour of Railway Companies who do not do their duty, and I am afraid that, as a rule, the Railway Companies throughout the country do not do their duty, but in the matter before us there is a counterbalancing claim in the case, because it includes the connection with the suburbs and the surrounding country with this great and crowded city of London, and that is a very great object, which has for its purpose the prevention of over-crowding in London. There are certains objections to every Railway Bill which is brought into this House, but I think the House will see that the objections which the hon. and gallant Member has urged aginst this Bill are objections which ought to be dealt with in Committee, and if the hon. Member is not satisfied with anything that the Committee may do, let him move the rejection of the Bill upon the Third Reading. But, I think the points he has raised are distinctly points for the Committee to investigate, and certainly are not points upon which the House should be asked to throw out the Bill on Second Reading. Of course, if I had been prominently connected with this Company in any way, I should have taken no part in the promotion of this Bill, because I think it is absolutely wrong for a director or a shareholder to have anything to do with the passing of a Bill in this House. I hope that this Bill will be passed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The House will have observed that my hon. and gallant Friend speaks of things which are not in the Bill, and he asks the House because the Bill does not include certain matters, that it should be rejected, but there can be no question, I think, that it is to the interest of the travelling public that this Bill should not be thrown out because my hon. and gallant Friend tells us that there ought to be a bridge instead of a level-crossing.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I moved the rejection of the Bill because of certain matters which were in the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not particularise the points in the Bill to which he objected. He certainly did say that there were certain objections coming from certain local authorities on the line, but I am quite certain that the House of Commons will consider that the objections that he has raised are objections that ought to go before a Committee. If there are these great objections, let them go before a Committee, let them be examined, and let the Bill, in the interests of the travelling public, be amended if necessary. With regard to level-crossings, I may say we have heard nothing of any of them on this line since 1892. I do not think, at any rate, that any representations have been made to the Board of Trade since that time, and further, we know of no act which has rendered any of the level-crossings dangerous to the travelling public. If it is shown that any of these level-crossings are attended with danger to the public, it is within the power of the Board of Trade to order their removal. The Act of 1852 empowers the Board of Trade to do that, but we should not feel ourselves justified to order the removal of a level-crossing unless it was shown to be absolutely necessary. I think the House should give this Bill a Second Reading, and let it be amended in Committee if necessary.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided—Ayes 132; Noes 36.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  SHEEP WORRYING IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a representation has been received from the Banffshire County Council complaining of the prevalence of sheep worrying, asking him to introduce a Bill to amend the law on the subject, and indicating the directions in which amendments are required; whether he is aware that cases of sheep worrying continue of frequent occurrence; and whether he will state what he proposes to do, by legislation or otherwise, to meet the claims of stock owners for the protection of their property?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The reply to the first and second inquiries is in the affirmative. With regard to the third, I would say that the subject is one which was very fully considered by the Departmental Committee which sat in 1896, and that so far as the recommendations made by that Committee require legislation, I have embodied them in a Bill which I hope shortly to be in a position to introduce. In the meantime we have brought the matter under the notice of the local authorities, with a view to the efficient execution by them of the powers they already possess in regard to the seizure of stray dogs.

  DUTY ON ALCOHOL IN FOREIGN MEDICINES.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the duty levied in the United Kingdom upon pure alcohol, and in consequence upon British medicines in which alcohol is used in the process of manufacture, he will lake steps to levy an equal countervailing duty (as in the case of transparent soap, etc.) upon the importation of German and other foreign medicines made with pure alcohol?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): Foreign medicines imported into this country, if containing alcohol, are charged duty on the alcohol they contain. The hon. Member, however, probably refers to medicines in the preparation of which pure alcohol must be used, but which, in their finished state, do not retain all the alcohol so used. Under the existing Tariff Law, power is given to charge such articles—
  "in respect of such quantity of spirit as shall appear to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be used in their manufacture,"
  with a duty—
  "equivalent to that which would be chargeable on the like quantity of spirit on its importation into the United Kingdom."
  Under this provision it is necessary to consider each article separately, and to assign to each its appropriate duty. The Treasury will be prepared to consider any evidence that may be submitted to them in support of demands for assignment of rates of duty on particular medicines or compounds, which are held to be of necessity prepared with pure alcohol that disappears wholly or in part in the process of manufacture.

  H.M.S. POWERFUL.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now any information to give the House relative to H.M.S. Powerful's performances on the way to China, and whether his attention has recently been called to a statement relative to defects in the engines of the Powerful, purporting to come from a correspondent on board that ship, and published in the Naval and Military Record of 6th January; whether he can inform the House as to the number of steaming days occupied by the Powerful from Portsmouth to Hong Kong; how many days in harbour from time of leaving to time of arrival; what was the average speed, the average indicated horse power, the total consumption of fuel, and the consumption per indicated horse power per hour; what tubes, if any, had to be replaced in boilers during voyage or on arrival; had any repairs to be made
  452
  in the feed arrangements; and was anything done to the evaporators?
  SIR WILLIAM ARROL: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House whether the engine bearers of the Powerful have gone down, and whether a sinking of the port engine has taken place; also whether the speed has been reduced from 22 to 16 knots; and, whether it will be necessary for the Powerful to return to England for repairs?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The Powerful called at Las Palmas, Simon's Bay, and, in deference to a request from the Government of Cape Colony, at Port Elizabeth and East London. She called also at Mauritius, Colombo, and Singapore. She was ordered to make the voyage at an average speed of 12½ knots, and to make a 24 hours' trial at 12,500 h.p. on leaving Mauritius, circumstances permitting. The voyage as far as Mauritius was accomplished at the speed ordered and without any devious incident. The exact details of the passage have not yet been received, but the number of steaming days was 50½ approximately, and number of days in harbour 36½. With the exception of the trial after leaving Mauritius the average speed was about 12½ knots as ordered. No returns have yet been received giving the average i.h.p., the total consumption of fuel or consumption per i.h.p. per hour, but from the report of the 24 hours' run from Mauritius, the i.h.p. was on that trial 12,079, the coal for 24 hours for all purposes 293 tons, which includes 41½ tons for auxiliary services, and the consumption per i.h.p. per hour for propelling engines was 1.93 lbs. No defects whatever have occurred in the generating tubes of the boilers, but two defective downcomer tubes were renewed, and only ordinary working defects have required to be made good to the main and auxiliary feed pumps during the voyage, and on arrival at Hong Kong. One evaporator pump broke down near Simon's Town, and both evaporator pumps broke down shortly after completion of 24 hours run from Mauritius, but no specific cause has been assigned for this accident. It has

  453
  been reported that during the 24 hours' run above referred to, nearly the whole of the crank head brasses of the main engine heated. The trial, however, was not stopped, and it is surmised that, in consequence, the brasses were seriously injured. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, there is no information that the bearers have gone down. It has been reported that the crank shafts have dropped 1–16th of an inch, and the bearings have worn inwards 3–64ths of an inch. This is not abnormal under the circumstances, and should cause no inconvenience after the brasses have been refitted. No report has been received as to any reduction in speed or anything which is at all likely to necessitate the Powerful's return to England.
  MR. J. F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why orders were not given for a more extended trial of these boilers at their full power, having regard to their experimental character?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: These experimental trials try ships very severely when first commissioned. It is not the custom in the mercantile marine to run long distances at full speed at first trial, nor is it the custom in Her Majesty's service.
  MR. W. ALLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it was that the Powerful took ten days to steam 1,500 miles and consumed 8,750 tons of coal in going to Singapore at a cost of £12,000?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The hon. Member must give me notice of that question.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the consolidation of the Factories and Workshops Acts; and whether there is any prospect of a consolidating Bill being introduced in the present Parliamentary Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY,): I explained, in replying to a question on this subject last Session, that experience of the working of the Act of 1895 had shown that amendment would have to precede consolidation; and I am afraid I see no prospect of my being able to introduce a general amending Bill at present.

  SUB-POST OFFICES IN COUNTY CORK.
  CAPTAIN A. J. C. DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any decision has yet been arrived at relative to the establishment of sub-post offices at Churchtown and Churchtown South, county Cork?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General regrets that the establishment of sub-post offices at Churchtown and Churchtown South, county Cork, is not warranted, the amount of correspondence for each place being small; but a wall letter-box, with an afternoon collection, has been sanctioned for Churchtown South, as the hon. Member was recently informed.

  THE TREATMENT OF INEBRIATES.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary for State for the Home Department whether the Government intend to propose legislation, as promised in the Queen's Speech of last Session, to carry out the recommendations of the Inebriates Committee of 1893, which have been endorsed by two Government Committees, one on the same subject in Scotland, and the other on prisons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: As I stated in this House on Monday, I hope to introduce an Inebriates' Bill shortly.

  BREACH OF THE FACTORY ACTS AT GLASGOW.
  MR. A. H. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the result of a prosecution instituted by Mr. R. E. Graves, Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories, before Sheriff Fife, at Glasgow, on 16th January, for a breach of sections 10 and 13 of the Factory Act of 1878; whether he is aware that the defendant was charged with employing his son, who was under 16 years of age, at four o'clock in the morning, when, according to the Act, he should not have been employed before six o'clock, and that, although the defendant admitted the offence, no penalty was inflicted, and no costs were allowed; and, as refusing to allow even the costs of a successful prosecution may deter factory inspectors from bringing such cases before the Court, whether he will inquire into the facts of the case, and take such steps as may seem to be necessary to ensure a more effective application of the Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention was called to this case at the time, and I made inquiries with regard to it. The facts are as stated in the Question, and there appears to have been a clear violation of the law. I have brought the matter to the notice of the Scottish authorities. The hon. Member may rest assured that what occurred in this case will not deter the Inspector from doing his duty under the Act.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to superintendents under the Irish Board of Intermediate Education, which stands on the Paper this day?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALEOUR,): The Commissioners of Intermediate Education will furnish the hon. Member with a Return containing the
  456
  information indicated, so far as they are in a position to provide it, on his making application to the Office of the Commissioners in Dublin. It is not considered necessary to grant the Return as a Parliamentary Paper.

  THE NEWTOWNARDS POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the recent vacancy in the Postmastership of Newtownards, what is the salary at present attached to this office, and if the vacancy was thrown open to competition amongst the eligible members of the Service; if not, why was not this course adopted, and what was the principle of selection pursued; whether the daughter of the late postmaster, upon whom the vacancy has been conferred, already held a Civil Service certificate; and, if so, what is the date of it; and if Rule 38 was duly observed in this instance?
  MR. J. PINKERTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he is aware that the late Postmaster was ill and unable to do the work for practically four years, and that for a long time before his death the business was practically managed by his daughter; also that people of all creeds and classes are in favour of her appointment?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those facts. The salary at present attached to the Postmastership of Newtownards is £110 a year. The appointment was not thrown open to the Service, as Miss Cooper, the daughter of the late Postmaster, who has succeeded her father, was reported to be fully competent to perform the duties of the office, which she had in fact discharged for some time during her father's illness. Miss Cooper holds a Civil Service Certificate, dated 19th November 1891, as a sorting clerk and telegraphist, and she had previously been employed as an assistant for several years. Memorials in

  457
  favour of her appointment were received from the Town Commissioners of Newtownards, and from others, by the Postmaster General, but he has no evidence that they were inspired by Miss Cooper, or that Rule 38 was in any way infringed by her.

  NAVAL PAY.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to grant to captains and commanders the six weeks in full pay granted to all other officers when ships of the Royal Navy are paid off; whether he will take into consideration the question of officers abroad on active service having to pay Income Tax, with a view of relieving them in this case; and, whether he will take into consideration the present system of putting officers on sick leave or invalided home on half-pay, with a view of proposing some alteration in favour of such officers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: If the noble Lord had had a glimpse into the Admiralty papers of the last month or two, he would have seen that proposals covering the subjects of his first and third questions were under the earnest consideration of the Board. What conclusion may be arrived at by Her Majesty's Government I am as yet unable to say. As regards the other Question, a precisely similar inquiry was addressed in March 1896, by the hon. Member for South-East Essex, to my right, hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stated in reply that Income Tax could not be remitted in the case of Naval officers serving afloat without conceding a similar remission to all other public servants serving abroad, and I doubt whether he would consent to my giving any other answer at the present moment.

  REGISTERED TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post
  458
  master General, at what date the rule of the Post Office prohibiting the registration as registered telegraphic addresses of words other than dictionary words was adopted, and for what reason, having for years allowed the registration of easily remembered arbitrary words constructed from the first and last syllable of a firm's name, or spelling the initials of the designation of a club, and still allowing it in the case of addresses registered prior to the new regulation, the Department now refuses to continue a practice so convenient to the public?
  MR. HANBURY: The rule of the Post Office prohibiting the registration of words other than dictionary words as registered addresses was first made of general application in July 1893. It had, however, been acted upon at the larger offices for some years previously. The use of arbitrary words was found to give rise to mistakes and confusion, and was, therefore, contrary to the interests of the public. It was for this reason that their use was prohibited.
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman which is the authorised dictionary for this?
  MR. HANBURY: Any ordinary dictionary, I should say.

  CHADWICK'S WEIR.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the weir known as Chadwick's Weir, on the River Boyne, at Navan, was boarded up in such a way during the close season, notably the month of October last, that salmon going up to spawn (with the exception of light fish) were unable to get through the Queen's Gap, and were forced to spawn in unsuitable places where the spawn gets destroyed, and large quantities of the spawning fish also; (2) whether he is also aware that the blocking of this weir left nearly a hundred miles of spawning beds above Navan practically vacant; (3) whether this weir was obstructed with the knowledge and consent of the Fishery Commissioners, or by whose

  459
  authority; (4) and whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what action in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Inspectors of Fisheries that the facts are not accurately stated in the first paragraph, and that there is no such stoppage of fish as is suggested. No objection was raised by the Inspectors to the proposal to partially stop the ladder at the weir, and the matter has also been before the Board of Conservators, who decided that there was no sufficient evidence to show that any damage was done. As at present advised, I see no reason for taking any action in the matter.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was not the object of thus blockading the weir to prevent the fish getting beyond that point to the detriment of the Navan beds?
  [No reply.]

  VOLUNTEER QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, as appears from the Army List, there are now 20 battalions of Volunteer Artillery without quartermasters; and what is the cause of this deficiency?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): There are at present 20 vacancies for quartermasters of Volunteer corps, out of an establishment of 213. This is not a large proportion, and is caused by the non-arrival of recommendations by the Commanding Officers of suitable candidates for the appointment.

  CORONERS' JURIES IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the attendance of implicated prisoners at coroners' inquests, whether he is aware that such attendance is allowed in England under a rule of the Home Office, and
  460
  not by any exceptional law, and whether he is aware that an absent prisoner may be indicted by a coroner's court in Ireland, and a Bill sent forward against him to the Court of Assize; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will now consider the desirability of having the practice in England followed in such cases in Ireland, in order that the prisoner may be present at this portion of his trial?
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DUNBAR BARTON,): With my right hon. Friend's permission, and in the absence of the Attorney General, I will reply to this Question. I am aware that, under a rule of the Home Office, prisoners who so desire it, may be produced before a coroner, where this can be done without injury to the administration of justice. A different rule prevails in Ireland. And I am not aware that any prisoner has been prejudiced by the Irish practice, or that any general desire has been expressed in favour of a change. It is true that a prisoner may be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter on a coroner's inquisition, but I am informed that there is no record of any case in Ireland where a prisoner has been so prosecuted. The invariable practice is, after depositions have been taken, to proceed by Bill of Indictment. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  COUNTY DOWN POSTAL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the unsatisfactory postal services with Killough and Ardglass, County Down, whether he will now make inquiry from the County Down Railway Company with the view of arranging upon reasonable terms for an earlier postal delivery and a later despatch at these towns.
  MR. HANBURY: The arrival of the morning mail at Killough takes place at 7.10 a.m., and at Ardglass at 7.35 a.m., a car from Downpatrick being used for the purpose. No advantage would

  461
  arise from transferring this mail to the railway, as the earliest train reaches Killough at 9.9 a.m. and Ardglass at 9.19 a.m. The question of employing the railway for the despatch of the evening mail from Killough and Ardglass, and also for the midday mails, inward and outward, is under consideration, and as soon as a decision is arrived at the hon. Member shall be informed.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): The facts are as stated in the Question, but the Admiralty have no power to award pensions or gratuities to the widows of men who die in the Naval Service in the ordinary course of Nature.

  BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE SCHOOLS.
  MR. A. E. HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether an unsectarian school is shortly to be closed at Burnley-in-Wharfedale; whether he is aware that the ratepayers, by a large majority, last year, expressed, in the form required by the Education Act, 1870, their desire for the establishment of a School Board; what reply was sent by the Department; and who is going to supply the necessary accommodation?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph is "Yes." With regard to the rest of the question, the Education Department had reason to believe that the resolution of the meeting last year was passed under a misapprehension. They advised, in reply, that another meeting should be called, to explain the position to the ratepayers. This the promoters of the application for a School Board declined, and threatened Parliamentary agitation. The Managers of the National School are supplying the necessary accommodation.
  MR. A. E. HUTTON: Has the Department any precedent for this action?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir, I should say numerous precedents.

  THE CASE OF JOHN SPIEVEN.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the men of Cork County, West, I beg to ask the President, of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fatal accident at Dunmanway Station, on the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway, whereby John Spieven lost his life; and will he inquire what experience Spieven, who was recently employed to take the place of one of the men on strike, had in the sort of work in which he was engaged?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My attention was directed to this acident, and I have inquired of the Company what experience the man had in the sort of work in which he was engaged. The reply is that he had ten years' experience as porter in the same capacity as that in which he was employed by the Cork and Bandon Railway at Dunmanway.

  THE CORK AND BANDON RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, West, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is he aware that sixty miles of the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast, Railway line are at present without competent men to keep it in proper repair; and whether, in view of the great danger to life, and also the great public inconvenience resulting from the strike on the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway, he will intervene with a view to a speedy settlement of the dispute between the said railway company and the men on strike?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have no information which enables me to say that the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question contains an accurate statement of the facts. With regard to the second para,

  463
  graph, so far as can be judged from newspaper reports, the dispute arises out of a question of breach of discipline, and is not of a kind in which intervention by the Board, of its own initiative, would be likely to lead to any useful result.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the men have throughout been willing to leave this case to arbitration? Cannot he see his way to recommend the directors to take that course?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am not aware of the fact; but even if it was so, I do not think it would be part of the duty of the Board of Trade to intervene.

  THE CASE OF ANDREW BOYD.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the judgment of Mr. Justice Madden, on Saturday last, in which bail, which was opposed by the Crown, was refused in the case of Andrew Boyd, who had been committed for trial on the charge of manslaughter, and who had been in prison since the 29th January; if he is aware that Boyd committed suicide in his cell on the following morning, his mind being unhinged by the refusal of bail; and whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity of adviser for the Crown in criminal prosecutions, will give directions that applications for bail should not be opposed in cases in which there are no reasonable apprehensions of the accused failing to appear?
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: The Attorney General's attention has been directed to the judgment referred to in the Question. It is unfortunately true that Andrew Boyd, who was awaiting trial for the manslaughter of a young woman named Minnie Henderson, committed suicide in Londonderry Gaol on Sunday morning last. At the inquest, held on the following day, a verdict was returned that "Deceased came by his death in H.M Prison, Londonderry, on 27th February 1898, from strangulation inflicted by
  464
  himself while suffering from temporary insanity." Evidence was given by his brother and his family physician to the effect that he had formerly suffered from insanity, and that at times he became very depressed. There is no reason to believe that the mind of deceased became unhinged by the refusal of bail. It is unnecessary for the Attorney General to give the directions mentioned in the third paragraph of the Question, as the Crown invariably acts upon the principle suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. PINKERTON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, a very strong feeling of sympathy in expressed with the family by the people of the locality?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Yes, I am aware that this family is greatly respected, and that the sympathy felt for them is universal.
  MR SWIFT MCNEILL: Is it a fact that bail was refused on Saturday, and he committed suicide on Sunday?
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: Yes; but as far as I am aware, he did not know that bail had been refused.

  FAILURE OF THE WHITEHILLS (BANFFSHIRE) FISHERIES.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware of the great distress existing at Whitehills, in Banffshire, on account of the failure this season of the fishing for herrings, haddocks, and flat fish in the Moray Firth; whether he is aware that this failure is attributed by the fishermen solely to the depredations of the trawlers; and whether he will make inquiry, and cause effective steps to be taken to remedy this grievance?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that although the earnings of the Whitehills fishermen have been miserably poor this season, the extent of the distress in the village has been exaggerated, as the majority of

  465
  them had saved money from their previous earnings. The haddock fishing, upon which the men principally depend has been a failure since November last The men differ in opinion as to this being due to the effects of trawling, the majority holding that the trawlers are partly to blame for the failure on the in-shore ground off Whitehills, while only a few of the men believe that the trawlers are solely to blame. The value of the fish landed at Whitehills during the three months ended 31st January last was £1,435, while the value for the corresponding period of 1896–97 was £2,252—certainly a marked decrease, but not proved to be attributable to the operations of trawlers, complaints of scarcity of haddocks being general all round the coast.

  PROPERTY OF THE BROTHERS NATU.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the property of the Natus, both real and personal, which is of very considerable value, has been attached by the Government, and the only provision made for their support and maintenance has been an allowance of Rs. 250 per month in one case, and Rs. 200 per month in the other; whether, under the provisions of the Regulations of 1827, under which the Natu brothers were arrested, the seizure of personal property is not authorised; and whether the Government will make any reparation to the brothers Natu for acting in excess of the powers conferred upon them by this Regulation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I will answer this question and No. 26 at the same time.
  MR. MACNEILL: No, no. I must ask the noble Lord to answer them step by step and one by one. It is my experience that when two questions are answered together, neither the one nor the other is properly replied to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The provision made for the elder Natu during his retention is Rs. 300 a month, and for the younger Rs. 200 a month. The whole revenue derived from their immovable property
  466
  is applied to the maintenance of the several members of the Natu families. The attachment of personal property is not authorised by the Regulation cited. Such movable property as was inadvertently attached by the local officers has been or is being restored, and no question of reparation has yet arisen.

  INDIAN POST OFFICE BILL.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether it is by the advice and with the sanction of the Home Government that the Post Office Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council of India; whether, under the provisions of this Bill, any postal officer can stop in transit, and ultimately destroy, any letter, newspaper, packet, parcel, etc., which he suspects to contain anything which in his opinion is defamatory or seditious; and on what grounds has this Bill been introduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Post Office Bill, which is a consolidating and amending Bill, was not submitted to me before its introduction, but in the ordinary course a copy was sent home shortly afterwards, and was received by me in November last. So far as defamatory and seditious matter is concerned, the powers referred to can only be exercised in respect of postal articles which have on them or on their covers, words or marks of a seditious, defamatory, or grossly offensive character. There is no power to act on suspicion in such cases. The object of the Bill generally is to consolidate the laws relating to the Post Office, to supply omissions and defects in it, and to adapt it to modern requirements.
  MR. MACNEILL: That is not the answer. Is not this the clause—"Communications"—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now proceeding to read some extract. He is not entitled to do that.
  MR. MACNEILL: No, Sir; but the answer given me by the noble Lord is not the one suggested to my mind by the section I have here.

  DETENTION OF THE BROTHERS NATU.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that repeated applications on the part of the Brothers Natu, who were arrested at Poona on the 20th July last, and have since been detained in gaol with no charge formulated against them for liberty to be granted to their legal advisers to see them have been refused, and that inquiries of these gentlemen as to the matter charged against them, and the evidence on which the proceedings against them are founded, have remained unanswered by the Government; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Natu brothers have now been in close imprisonment without having been charged with any offence or brought to trial for upwards of seven months, they will be either immediately brought to trial or discharged?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Natus have been informed of the reasons for their arrest in the terms of the Regulation, but access to their legal advisers has not been granted. I am aware that they have made one application on this subject which was answered; whether they have made more than one I do not know. The detention of the Natus under personal restraint must continue until the Government of India and Bombay are satisfied that their release will not endanger the public tranquility.
  MR. MACNEILL: Have the brothers Natu been told what charge was made against them by the Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: They have been informed of the reasons of their arrest in the terms of the regulation.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is any intention of bringing these men to trial at all?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No, Sir; if there were evidence to justify their being put on a criminal charge recourse would not have been had to this Act.

  THE DONEGAL MILITIA.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Staff of the Donegal Militia will be established in accordance with arrangement at Ballyshannon; and what is the reason for the delay?
  MR. BRODRICK: Until the last few weeks the barrack at Ballyshannon has been required for the detachment of Royal Engineers. They have now vacated it; and as soon as the necessary alterations have been made, for which money is taken in the Estimates of 1897–8, the permanent staff of the Enniskillen Fusiliers can be moved in.

  THE SOUDAN CAMPAIGN.
  MR. JOHN E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House the authority for, and particulars of, the information alluded to in the Queen's Speech, that the Khalifa was intending to attack the Egyptian Army in the Soudan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): The authorities for the information in question were the Sirdar and the General Officer commanding in Egypt, and the information was to the effect that an attack by the Khalifa with his whole force, which was actually assembled for the purpose, was in contemplation.

  ORDERS FOR GALLANTRY IN THE INDIAN NATIVE ARMY.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the case that Native officers and soldiers of the Indian Army are at present ineligible for the decoration of the Victoria Cross; and whether, in view of the many signal acts of valour and devotion for which these subjects of Her Majesty have been distinguished since the Victoria Cross was first instituted, he will consider the expediency

  469
  of advising an alteration in the present conditions of winning the Victoria Cross, so as to make all officers and soldiers in Her Majesty's service eligible for this reward for distinguished bravery in the field?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My honourable Friend is perhaps unaware that the officers and soldiers of the Native Army, who are ineligible for the Victoria Cross, have an Order of their own, the "Order of Merit," for which they alone are eligible. This Order is given as a reward for personal bravery. It consists of three classes, and carries with it additional pay:—In the third class, one-third; in the second class, two-thirds; in the first class, the equivalent of the recipient's net pay. In the lower ranks the additional pay is less than the £10 attached to the Victoria Cross; in the higher ranks, it is more. This Order is highly valued by the Native Army, and I see great objections to an alteration of the existing arrangement.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: Arising out of the question, does the noble Lord mean the House to understand that the Order of Merit referred to is regarded as a full equivalent to the Victoria Cross?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, Sir; it is an equivalent so far as the Native Army is concerned. It is, perhaps, given on a somewhat more liberal scale than the Victoria Cross, but it is an equivalent.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the noble Lord whether, if there is any general disposition amongst the soldiers of the Native Arm to become eligible for the Victoria Cross, arrangements can be made whereby they may obtain it as well as white soldiers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The existing arrangements, I think, are more favourable to the Native soldiers than if they were eligible for the Victoria Cross.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the questions put to him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I cannot give any other answer.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will put several Questions on this subject.

  THE SUNDAY CLOSING OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any law exists compelling the closing of public libraries on Sunday; and, if not, will steps be taken to secure the opening of public libraries in London for at least some portion of that day in order to provide working men with an opportunity for profitable recreation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am not aware of any law which compels the closing of public libraries on Sunday, but the question of closing or opening them appears to rest with the local authorities under the Libraries Acts.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter under the notice of the proper authorities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have no special authority to do anything of the sort.

  THE CLOGHER VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state why the directors of the Clogher Valley (Ireland) Tramway do not publish returns of their traffic receipts and expenditure in the newspapers; if he is aware that the baronial cess in the district through which the tramway passes amounts to 1s. 8d. in the pound, of which one-half is absorbed as guarantee payment by the tramway; and, could a means be devised of working this comparatively short line with greater economy in its staff of officials, or otherwise, so that a heavy burden might be lifted from off the shoulders of the cesspayers?
  MR. HANBURY: I am informed that the Clogher Valley Tramway Company

  471
  print accounts half-yearly, which are distributed in the usual manner. The company is not under any obligation to publish returns more frequently. Taking the average of the two latest years for which the figures are available, the county cess upon the districts through which the tramway passes amounted to 2s. in the pound for the district in County Fermanagh, and to 2s. 9d. in the pound for the district in County Tyrone. The sums included for contribution to the tramway amounted during that period to 10d. in the pound in County Fermanagh and to 6½d. in County Tyrone. The question whether any means could be devised of working the line with greater economy could only be answered by the Treasury, after an inquiry under Section 7 of the Railway Act of 1896; and there appears to be no reason for the institution of such an inquiry.

  THE DISCHARGES FROM PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state whether the four men who were discharged at Portsmouth in January last were men of good character and of long service; whether he is aware that the meeting of which complaint was made was held outside the gates of the Government works, and on land belonging to the town; that the meeting was conducted in an orderly manner; and that the questions discussed at the meeting were strictly confined to grievances of which the workmen complained; whether he will state to the House the terms of the departmental regulations which they had violated; and whether he will consent to the appointment of a small Committee to make a strict investigation into the grievances of which the men complain—viz., the method of payment by piece, to which the workmen take great objection?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I cannot answer the first question of the hon. Member without some qualification. The character of the four men referred to was generally good, but one of them had been convicted a short time before of making a dishonest return of work to the recording officer of
  472
  the dockyard, and another had, on one occasion, written an improper letter to his superior officer, for which he had been warned that any similar conduct in future would entail his dismissal. Three of the men had fairly long service, but one of the four had only two years. Secondly, the meeting was held outside the dockyard gates, but the land belonged not to the town but to the Admiralty. However, I am not prepared to deal with the Question on technicalities, either in one direction or the other. Questions four and five are debateable assertions. The reports of the meeting, sent to me by the men themselves, show that the recognised methods of seeking to obtain redress of their grievances were ignored by the men. The hon. Member assumes, in his further Question, that there must have been some particular Departmental regulation which the men had violated. In reply, I may draw his attention to Article 39 of the Dockyard Regulations, whereby conduct in any way to the prejudice of the public service is an offence to which dismissal may be applied. But I had better read to the hon. Gentleman a portion of my reply to a similar Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, especially as the same publicity has not been given to the last sentence of that reply as to the remainder of the letter.
  "As regards your second inquiry as to the particular offence which brought upon certain workmen their dismissal from the Service, I should have thought that it would have been plain to you that the part they played in the meeting in question, just outside the Dockyard gates, as reported in the public Press, and in a letter which was addressed to me by one of them, was of a character prejudicial to the public service. Let me remind you that one of the men whose services are now dispensed with had been suspended for what was practically a fraud on the public—viz., having claimed from the recorder pay for the putting in of 16 rivets, when, in point of fact, he had only put in one. That this man, of whose grave fault some of his fellow workmen must have been cognisant, should take a prominent part in the proceedings gave a character to them which, I should have thought, would have rendered it plain, irrespective of the other circumstances, why the Admiralty were called upon to dispense with the services of those who took the lead on this occasion."
  I understand that the question of the dismissal of these men is to be brought before the House. I reserve, therefore, a full statement of the grounds for their dis

  473
  missal until that occasion, should it be necessary. In reply to the last Question, I cannot consent to the appointment of such a Committee. The Question of whether any revision of the piecework scale of pay is necessary has been under careful consideration for some time, and I believe it was known to be so in the yards. I am giving the matter my personal attention, and the Board of Admiralty feel perfectly competent to deal with the matter equitably.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the system of piecework which obtains in the dockyards is totally different from the piecework done in any other shipyards throughout the country?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a general Question which hardly arises out of the answer.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: When the proper time comes I shall be prepared to give a full and satisfactory reply.

  INDIA AND THE INCREASE OF PAY TO BRITISH SOLDIERS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government intend to throw upon India the increased charge caused by their proposal to raise the pay of the soldier in the British Army, and how much this will come to; whether the British soldier serving in India will receive this increased pay at an exchange of 1s. 4d. the rupee, thus giving him an advantage over the Native soldier, whose pay calculated in rupees is not affected by the rate of exchange; whether the British soldier on a shilling a day will in such case receive Rs. 23 per month, while the Native soldier receives Rs. 8 a month and has to feed himself; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will consent that this increased charge should be borne by this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am in communication with the Government of India on the subject of the increased charges which will be
  474
  caused by the proposals of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the increase in the pay of the British Army. The Question to be settled is very complicated, the grocery ration in India being on quite a different basis from that adopted in this country, and I am not yet in a position to say what the effects of the change will be. In any case, the cost of the British Army in India will continue to be borne, as it has always been borne, by India.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE ON THE NIGER.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have agreed to take over the administration of the territories hitherto administered by the Royal Niger Company; whether Boussa, on the Niger, was acquired by treaty by the Royal Niger Company; whether a British Protectorate over Boussa was declared in 1895, and the Government of France informed of the fact; whether Boussa is now occupied by French troops; and whether, with due regard to the interests of the State, he can say what is the policy of the Government with regard to Boussa?
  MR. CURZON: No decision has yet been arrived at on the first point. Boussa has not been acquired by treaty by any one, but treaties were concluded with it by the Royal Niger Company in 1885 and 1890. The answer to the third and fourth questions is in the affirmative, and to the fifth in the negative.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Do the Government regard Boussa as a point of importance—I understand it is the last navigable point on the Niger?
  MR. CURZON: That is a roving kind of Question, which I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman ought to put, but which I am quite certain I ought not to reply to.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would explain

  475
  why assistant teachers in ordinary national schools are not paid the same salary as those in model schools, they having to do the same duty; and whether the seventy-five average, which is necessary for a school to qualify for an assistant teacher, will be reduced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that in some respects the position and responsibility of Assistant Teachers in ordinary National Schools are different from those of Assistants in Model Schools. The whole question of the condition of Model Schools, including their financial position, is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners. The question of a reduction in the minimum average daily attendance of seventy, not seventy-five, entitling a School to one or more Assistant Teachers, is at present the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.

  THE MELBOURNE MINT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a serious deficiency exceeding £2,000 in the funds of the Melbourne Mint; whether the British Government will have to ask Parliament to vote the money to pay this sum; whether the Victorian Government has made a profit of over £6,000 last year from the Melbourne Mint; and whether that Government will contribute towards the loss?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sums, amounting to over £2,250 were stolen by a clerk in the Melbourne Branch of the Royal Mint, who has been sentenced to two years' hard labour. On learning the circumstances of the thefts, I directed that an inquiry should be held into the administration and organisation of the three Branch Mints in Australia, and Sir Ralph Thompson, formerly Permanent Under Secretary to the War Office, and Mr. Rigg, of the Royal Mint, went to Australia for that purpose. The Government will not have to ask Parliament for a Special Vote, as there are sufficient savings on the Mint Vote for the current financial year to make the defalcation
  476
  good. The facts will be fully explained in the Appropriation Account. The Annual Report of the Melbourne Mint for the year 1897 has not yet been received, so that the Revenue which has resulted from its operations is not known here. The Victorian Government will not be asked to contribute towards the loss. It must be remembered that the Mint is an Imperial establishment, for the working of which the Colony is in no way responsible; and that we receive from the Colony an annuity which covers the whole gross cost of the Mint.

  WORCESTER ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the following men: namely, Mark Smith, Adam Bindger, Wilson Porter, Thomas Sandells, Arthur Savage, Turmed Cooke, and William Menlin, who have been convicted and sent to Worcester Gaol as criminals for objecting to have their children vaccinated; and whether, seeing such conviction is contrary to the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, he will give effect to those recommendations by ordering their release?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has not been called to these cases, otherwise than by the hon. Member's question. I should not feel justified in relieving these persons from the consequences of their disobedience to the law on the ground suggested in the Question.

  THE OLD HEREFORDSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. C. W. R. COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the contemplated additions to the strength of the Army, the Government would consider the claim of the old 36th, or Herefordshire Regiment, now the 2nd Battalion of the 29th, or Worcestershire Regiment, to become a double battalion regiment by the addition of one of the new bat

  477
  talions, with a local depôt at Hereford, and to be reinstated as the County Regiment?
  MR. BRODRICK: As already slated in Parliament, it is intended to use the new battalions for the purpose of converting three of the present two-battalion regiments into four-battalion regiments. It will, therefore, not be possible to act on the suggestion in the Question.

  THE GLASGOW TELEPHONE INQUIRY.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Report and evidence taken by the Treasury Commissioner at the Telephone inquiry in Glasgow, so that, the same may be in the hands of Members before the House goes into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. HANBURY: The Report and Evidence were laid on the Table yesterday, and I will see that there is no avoidable delay in printing them.

  THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, up to the year 1896, members of the educational service in India, without distinction of race, had the opportunity of rising by merit to the highest positions in the service, and did in fact rise to those positions; whether, in consequence of changes introduced in 1896, Indians are now in actual practice debarred from promotion to certain higher posts, which are exclusively reserved for persons appointed in England by the Secretary of State; and whether he will place upon the Table the new rule by which this disability is created?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My answer to the first of the three divisions of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. To the second, my answer is in the negative. The effect of the changes made in 1896
  478
  was, while preserving vested interests and prospects of promotion in the graded lists, to transfer to the Provincial Educational Service certain high appointments which had hitherto been filled by nomination in this country, thus practically reserving them for natives of India; while as regards such appointments to the Indian Educational Service as will be henceforward made by nomination in this country, there is nothing to prevent the selection of natives of India, and it was specially provided in 1896 that a native of India, if thus selected, should receive the same pay as an European, and not, as before, two thirds only; besides having, of course, the same chances of promotion. There is, therefore, no such new rule as the hon. Member supposes.

  MEAT AND FORAGE FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what quantity of meat was supplied to troops stationed within the United Kingdom, and the average price paid for it, during the financial year ending with March, 1897; and what proportion of each description of forage supplied to the Army in that year was of Foreign origin?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): About 29,000,000 pounds of meat were supplied in 1896–7 to the troops in the United Kingdom, at an average price slightly under fivepence per pound. As I have repeatedly stated to the House, the place of origin of forage is not known. If the forage comes up to the required standard of quality it is accepted; but local purchases are encouraged, and it is believed that they result in the supplies being largely of home growth.
  MR. LOGAN: Would it not be possible to specify that all the forage should be home grown?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, it would be quite possible to specify it, but it would also be impossible to see that the specification was complied with.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no costermonger in Ireland will feed his donkey with Foreign forage?
  [No Reply was given.]

  MEAT FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what quantity of fresh and tinned meat respectively was supplied to the Navy within the United Kingdom, what proportion of each was of Foreign origin, and what the average price paid for each was, during the financial year ending with March, 1897?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The quantity of fresh meat supplied to the Navy within the period specified was 8,368,185 lbs., the average price was 5.47d. per lb. I cannot say whether any proportion of this was of Foreign origin. The quantity of tinned meat supplied was 8,368,185lbs., the average price was 3.47d, per lb. It was procured from Australia and America. There is no source of supply for this article within the United Kingdom.

  THE IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to give the county councils or the other bodies proposed to be set up in Ireland under the Local Government Bill control of the sea or inland fisheries; and, if not, whether the Government would be willing to have its powers amplified in that direction?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter would appear to be one proper to be discussed when the Bill is under consideration by the House, and I am not prepared, at present, to make any statement upon it.

  INDIAN RELIEFS.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state to the House what is the total number of reliefs sent to India during the last six months, and the number for the same period last year?
  MR. BRODRICK: The reliefs sent to India during the six months ended on the 3rd March, 1897, were 14,510, and during the six months ending to-day, 14,621 have been sent. There is this difference between the periods, that in 1897 all the reliefs had been despatched by the 3rd March; whereas this year there remain 1,403 still to be sent.
  MR. FLAVIN: What number of this total are now efficient for duty?
  MR. BRODRICK: I really cannot say. I imagine they are all efficient for duty.

  IRISH SALMON FISHERY BOARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution, unanimously adopted by the Youghal (County Cork) Town Commissioners at their last meeting, suggesting a provision in the Local Government Bill amending the constitution of the Irish Salmon Fishery Boards; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking the step indicated in the resolution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The answer which I just gave to the Question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny must be taken as applying to this Question also.

  THE ENNISKILLEN ESTATE.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Commissioners of Education, at a meeting of their board held several weeks ago, adopted a resolution accepting the offer

  481
  of the tenants to purchase their holdings on the Enniskillen estate, and empowering the Standing Committee to give effect to that resolution; if he can explain the cause of the delay on the part of the Standing Committee in commencing to carry out the sale of the estate; and whether he will take steps to have the proceedings expedited?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The acceptance by the tenants of the conditions on which the Commissioners are prepared to sell the holdings on this estate, was not communicated to the Commissioners until the 25th January, and was before the Standing Committee on the 8th February. There has been no delay in the proceedings, and the necessary steps are being taken to carry out the sale.

  DENBIGHSHIRE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused to the residents in the postal district of Llanfihangel-Glyn-Myfyr, Denbighshire, by the non-delivery of letters; whether it is a fact that letters are delivered at the rectory and at a few houses near the village, but that letters addressed to the surrounding farms are left at the post office until called for; whether he is aware that as many as between 200 and 300 letters a year are addressed to some of the houses, and that this frequently necessitates daily journeys of many miles to the post office; and, whether he will take steps to ascertain whether the wants of the locality can be met by a delivery of letters in the district?
  MR. HANBURY: The attention of the Postmaster General has not been drawn to the inconvenience caused to the residents in the postal district of Llanfihangel-Glyn-Myfyr by the non-delivery of letters. The Post Office Surveyors are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the task of establishing postal deliveries throughout the United Kingdom, but, of course, many localities still remain to be dealt with. It appears from the records at the
  482
  General Post Office that letters are delivered at the rectory and in the village; but this is possibly not yet the case at the surrounding farms. The Postmaster General, having received no report on the subject, is not aware of the number of letters a year addressed to some of the houses. Steps will be taken to meet the wants of the locality as soon as practicable, consistently with the other work which has still to be done in connection with the Budget Reforms.

  BUXTON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. WILLIAM SIDEBOTTOM: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, why the Education Department, after having intimated to the Buxton School Board that it had the first right to provide any additional accommodation which the Department required, and after having received places of such additional required accommodation from the Board, has, before communicating the views of the Department on these places, placed a Roman Catholic School at Buxton on the list for the Government grant; and, what is the ground for such treatment of one denominational school, there being no other denominational school in Buxton receiving State aid?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Further school accommodation in Buxton was required, and there was a Roman Catholic School established in 1888, having 73 scholars on the books, and an average attendance of 46. The Education Department has accordingly determined that such a school is not unnecessary under Article 80 of the Code.

  COUNTY MONAGHAN GRAND JURY.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state how much the Grand Jury of County Monaghan have paid out of the money of the public in county cess on the evicted farms of Mr. Shirley, a grand juror of the county; whether the accounts of the Monaghan Grand Jury were audited;

  483
  and, if he can state the name of the auditor?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the Grand Jury of County Monaghan have re-presented at Assizes, extending over a number of years, for county cess which had been returned by the Barony High Constable in respect of evicted farms on the Shirley estate. The moneys represented for are shown in the accounts of the Grand Jury, and amount to £78 17s. during the past four years. I understand that proceedings were recently taken against Mr. Shirley for the recovery of cess on vacant farms, and that the case was adjourned by the County Court Judge for the decision of the Grand Jury as to presenting at the present Assizes. The accounts of the Grand Jury have been audited by Mr. Sheehan, the district auditor, and it is hardly necessary to point out that the auditor can take no objection to presentments duly fiated by the Judge of Assize.

  RHODESIA HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give any information to the House as to the present or proposed constitution of the High Court of Rhodesia, referred to in the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Alfred Milner recently laid before Parliament; what is the number of the judges of the Court at present; by what authority have the said judges been appointed; has the selection been made from members of the legal profession in the United Kingdom or in British Colonies; and will he take care that persons not belonging to the legal profession, or who have not had a legal training, shall not be appointed judges in the territories in question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): There are at present two judges. They are appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Matabeleland Order in Council, by the British South Africa Company with the approval of the Secretary of State. Both are
  484
  members of the English Bar. I have no intention of approving anyone who is not legally trained.
  MR. MACNEILL: By what tenure do these judges hold office? At whoso pleasure? Is it the pleasure of the Company?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I must ask for notice of that.

  COOLIES IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a telgram from Pretoria, through Renter's agency, which appeared in the Press on Saturday last, which announced that the Volksraad of the South African Republic had rescinded a resolution permitting coolies to reside and trade in the towns of the Transvaal; and whether, if the coolies referred to are British subjects, any interference with their trading in any part of the Republic is a violation of the Convention of London, 1884?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have no official information on the point. But it is said to be connected with the test case which is about to be brought before the Court in pursuance of the arrangements shown in the correspondence presented to Parliament in September, 1895, and which case will be watched by counsel on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. As to the second part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the correspondence I have mentioned.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON FEUS AND LEASES.
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government purpose this Session taking up and disposing of the Report of the Select Committee on Feus and Leases in Scotland, and giving effect to the recommendations therein by means of legislation?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Government cannot undertake legislation on the subject this Session.

  FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. G. W. E. LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to bring in a Fisheries Acts Amendment Bill this Session similar to that introduced last year in another place, and, if so, whether he can see his way to bringing it in at an early date?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir; it is proposed to reintroduce this Bill, but I am at present unable to name any date for its introduction.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE ON THE NIGER.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any notification has been addressed to France by Her Majesty's Government of a British Protectorate in the basin of the Niger, expressly stated to extend over the countries of Borgu and Boussa lying on the western side of the Niger, and whether any notification of such a Protectorate has been addressed to France later, or other than that which is embodied in the declaration published in the London Gazette of 18th October, 1887, proclaiming a British Protectorate over all territories in the basin of the Niger and its affluents which are, or may be for the time being, subject to the government of the Royal Niger Company, if so, what was the date of such notification; whether the French Government have applied to any such notification, if any, of a British Protectorate alleging any claims of their own to any territories included therein; and whether any information can now be given to the House to show the limits of the territories in the Niger basin which are subject to the government of the Royal Niger Company?
  MR. CURZON: A formal notification to the effect mentioned in paragraph
  486
  I was made to the French Government by Lord Dufferin on January 1st, 1895, supplementing an earlier notification of the Treaty of the Niger Company, which had previously been made by the British representative at the first meeting of the Niger Commission which met in Paris in May, 1892. The second and third questions relate to matters now under discussion at Paris. May I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House kindly to spare me the necessity of declining to answer questions about the subject-matter of these negotiations while they are still proceeding?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did the notification to France expressly name Borgu and Boussa?
  MR. CURZON: I should like to verify my recollection before answering that question.

  THE POSTMEN'S PARK.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to his intimation that the payment of £2,500 in connection with the Post Office could be freed from the condition attached, that the said sum is to be devoted to the scheme for acquiring as an open space certain vacant land in Little Britain adjoining the existing public garden in the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, in what manner, and with whom, he will carry on such a negotiation; and whether he is aware that the citizens and others who have worked for a long period to free this space, and have collected subscriptions amounting to over £3,600, have throughout depended upon this contract being observed in good faith?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury sanctioned the sale of the land in Cheapside, and the application of the purchase money to the purposes of the Postmen's Park on the understanding that the Post Office should cease to pay a sum of £100 hitherto paid to the City Parochial Trustees, and should, on the other hand, receive from the Trustees £100 a year formerly paid by them to the Vicar and Churchwardens

  487
  of St. Botolph. Both these conditions have now fallen through, as the City Parochial Trustees—not unnaturally, I think—object to any arrangement which would throw the cost of the maintenance of the garden on to the ratepayers. This means that the maintenance would have to be undertaken out of public funds, involving a capitalised cost of £6,000. This is a wholly unreasonable additional amount to contribute. I have no doubt that it will be possible to come to an arrangement for the payment of the sum in question, which already stands in the joint names of officers of the Corporation and the Postmaster General. I am aware that considerable subscriptions have been raised, which, however, can, one of the Churchwardens states, be returned intact. The Treasury are still prepared to carry out their original contract, but they are not prepared to add to it a further offer of £6,000.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. E. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Bill gives greater relief to local taxation in Ireland than the English and Scotch Agricultural Rating Acts give in Great Britain; and, if so, what is the amount of greater relief, and how is it given?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Agricultural Grant proposed to be given to Ireland under the Bill is intended to correspond, generally, with the Grant assigned to England under the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896. It would not be easy to give a more precise answer than this to the Question of the hon. Member, because the circumstances of England and Ireland differ in some important particulars, and no absolute measure of comparison is possible.
  MR. STRACHEY: Would the difference be in favour of England, or of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think it is possible to say.

  PROMOTION OF ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  COLONEL J. M. DENNY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engine-room artificers have been promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: An examination has been held, at which 20 engine-room artificers have qualified for the Warrant rank of artificer engineer. When the necessary inquiries as to their character and recommendations have been made, a certain number of these will be selected for promotion. It is proposed to promote engine-room artificers by degrees, until the number fixed by Order in Council (50) has been reached.

  THE MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. F. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether dogs engaged in coursing are exempted from the muzzling order in the same way as foxhounds and staghounds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The exemption is in favour of "packs of hounds, or greyhounds, while being exercised or used for sporting purposes, or other sporting dogs while being used for sporting purposes." I have no authority to interpret these words, but I do not think there can be any doubt that dogs engaged in coursing would be within the exemption.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the exemption from muzzling under the rabies orders is in practice extended to terriers engaged in rabbit coursing?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No, Sir.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AND PUBLIC LIFE.
  SIR HENRY HOWARTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is with the sanction of the Government that the Per

  489
  manent Secretary to the Board of Trade has been making speeches and discussing polemical issues at public meetings; and whether it is in accordance with precedent that the permanent officials in the various Government departments should join in the public discussion of controversial matters?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that my attention has not been called to the speeches to which my hon. Friend refers. There are Treasury minutes restricting the action of Civil Servants in regard to political matters, but those minutes do not cover so wide a ground as that described by my hon. Friend in the second paragraph of his Question. There is, however, an understanding that Civil Servants shall not take an active part in public controversies, even outside the domain of politics, without the consent of the head of their department, and in my opinion it is desirable that this understanding should be adhered to.

  THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will be able this Session to include in their scheme of Local Government for Ireland the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and the substitution of a Secretaryship of State?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know whether it would be competent to include such a proposal in the Bill, I think probably not, but even if it were it would be travelling very far beyond the limits of local government, to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  THE ROYAL BUCKHOUNDS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the sworn depositions of the suffering caused to the tame deer when hunted by the Royal buckhounds on 10th December 1897
  490
  have been brought under the notice of the Prime Minister; and whether, having regard to the fact that in December 1896 a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister, signed, among other signatories, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, against the continuance of this form of sport, any steps will be taken for the abolition of the Royal buckhounds?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that no record has been kept of any such deposition having reached the Prime Minister. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, the answer is in the negative.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice is viewed with repugnance in the very highest quarters?
  [No answer was given.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I say that tomorrow we propose to take a vote on account, and on Monday we hope to take one or two Bills which ought to be advanced in order that they may be referred to Grand Committees. The first of those Bills will be the Benefices (No. 2). Bill. On Thursday I hope to take the Navy Estimates.

  BENEFICES BILL.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the Patronage of Benefices, and to amend the Pluralties Acts, 1838 and 1885. I do not think that in introducing this Bill it is necessary that I should detain the House long. The Bill is based upon, and covers, broadly speaking, the same grounds as that which the House read a second time

  491
  yesterday without a division, and also of the Bill brought in last year by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Bootle Division. There are, however, differences—not important differences—connected with both of these Measures, but those differences are rather for discussion in Committee than for the First or Second Reading. It will be sufficient if I say that the object of the Bill is to strengthen the law against Simoniacal practices by requiring the transfer of the benefices to be registered in the diocesan register, by prohibiting the transfer of next presentations, by invalidating any transfer made within twelve months after institution, and by preventing the transfer carrying with it any rights of possession. There is to be an appeal from any decision which a bishop may give to a Court in which a lay Judge shall give a final verdict, both as to law and fact. There is another clause providing that where under the existing Pluralities Acts a curate has been appointed in the parish in consequence of the incumbent of that parish not doing his duty to the parish, the bishop shall be empowered to inhibit the clergyman from any ecclesiastical acts or functions in the parish. That will not, of course, alter the amount of the emolument which the clergyman derives from the living. I do not think anything more need be said, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  AN HON. MEMBER: I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his decision to take the Second Reading on Monday next. We shall require time, and there is no need for hurry.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I may say that copies of the Bill will be available for Members about eight o'clock this day, and I cannot but think that the time which lapses between now and Monday will be amply sufficient. My supporters, whose names appear on the Bill, are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor-General.
  Bill brought in and read a first time without a division; Monday next fixed for Second Reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee—
  SUPPLY.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for Public Education in Scotland."
    MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: With regard to this Vote, we first of all desire that the money should be paid directly to the schools, in order to avoid any possibility of its being devoted to purposes other than education; secondly, we desire that some security should be taken that the money should be paid in such a way as will give special encouragement to better education in Scotland; thirdly, we insist upon the necessity of getting an audit of the accounts of the Voluntary Schools. I should just like in two or three words to examine how far these conditions have been carried out by the Education Department. We did succeed in inducing the Lord Advocate to insert an Amendment in the Bill simply referring to this matter, and he put into the Scottish Bill the same words as appeared in the English Bill. But, so far as I observe, the conditions laid down by the Scotch Code, no such proposal has been introduced by the Scottish Department, and these Voluntary Schools which will receive these grants will receive them without any public audit whatever. Of course, upon this point I only give my interpretation, and, so far as I can find out, there is no provision for any audit of this kind. If the Lord Advocate can assure us that we are going to have any such provision issued by the Department, it will be a

    493
    great satisfaction to us. It will be in the recollection of my colleagues for Scotland that the Lord Advocate has expressed himself in favour of this, for he went on to say—
    "He had said that there certainly would be an audit, but that he could not bind himself to the same regulation as in the English Act."
    Well, now, with regard to the second point which I alluded to: namely, that the money should be paid for the purposes of encouraging education, and not merely for relieving institutions. During the progress of the Bill we endeavoured to get inserted words similar to what are inserted here. Well, Sir, I cannot find any provision, and I do not know whether there are any general provisions in the Code which would prevent Voluntary Schools applying this extra grant for purposes of diminishing their debt or their subscriptions. I do not know whether there is any such thing. Anyhow, there appears to be. There is certainly no specific provision made that this money should be devoted to the purposes of education in Voluntary Schools. With regard to the first point, that the money should be paid directly to the Voluntary Schools at so much per head, there the Scotch Education Department has met the demand that we make, and met it in the words we wanted them to insert in the Bill, because the regulations such as are contained in Chapter 6 of the Scotch Code may be the same as the regulations which are inserted with regard to instruction as in Chapter 4—namely, that the money should be paid to the managers of Voluntary Schools in proportion and in accordance with the number of scholars in average attendance. That was one of the proposals we laid before the Government last summer, namely, that they should distribute this money at so much per head. That has been done, and that is certainly so far satisfactory, that there is no list of any nomination or association of this Act of Parliament to whom such money might be paid. But, Sir, what is the conclusion to be drawn from that? It appears, from the Scotch Code, that three shillings per head per scholar is given by the Imperial Exchequer to those Voluntary Schools, and to those schools alone. In other words they get
    494
    10s. or 12s. per head from the public exchequer. The Voluntary Schools, whether necessitous or not necessitous, are getting practically 10s. per head. We may draw this conclusion from the lines taken by the Lord Advocate himself last summer, that, after all, the Bill cannot be looked upon as a Bill of very great importance to the educational system of Scotland, or, as he said himself—
    "The Government never pretended that this Bill was a step forward in the general educational system of Scotland."
    Certainly, I think, the Bill itself, and the conditions imposed by the Code, justified the Lord Advocate himself depreciating his own Bill. But it does do this—which we thought it would do—it reduces the principle of equality between Board Schools and Voluntary Schools, and I am perfectly certain of this, that the method by which it is intended to distribute this grant will cause a demand to be raised in Scotland, and a very large demand, that in the immediate future this inequality should be rectified, and an extra 3s. per head given to the Board Schools in Scotland, so that the national system shall not be affected by this Act of Parliament, because where there is one scholar in Voluntary Schools there are six in Board Schools, and we do repudiate very strongly this practice. I should be glad to get some information from the Lord Advocate with regard to the question how far, or whether there are any restrictions upon the spending of this money, and whether there is any guarantee that it will go for the improvement of education in Voluntary Schools. So far as I can read the regulations, the only restriction is this—of course, if a Voluntary school ceases to be efficient it does not get any more than any other kind of school.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I think hon. Members do not understand that the money we are asking for to-night is precisely in the same position as the money granted last year. As I pointed out the other day, it was by a mere accident that we did not get this supplemental Estimate during the course of last summer,

    495
    and I said, also then, that, of course, if hon. Members think that any provisions of the Code are separable, then, of course, that was the proper time. The amount of money settled has nothing to do with the distribution. Now, so far as the audit of accounts is concerned, there is the ordinary safeguard, but there is no special provision. They have to show their accounts to the Inspector, and the Scotch Education Department has to be satisfied that the money given to the Voluntary Schools shall be used by them for educational purposes, and that the money has been so spent. In that sense there is, and will continue to be, an audit. That really answers the hon. Member's other question. I do not think he has quite noticed—I will not say that—I do not think he has given absolutely sufficient weight to the fact that this grant of 3s. is to be an extra grant. Under Article 155 of the Code of this year, it is stated—
    "The sum of 3s. per child for the whole number of children in average attendance shall be paid to the managers of Voluntary Day Schools conditionally entitled to share in the Parliamentary Grant for Education, provided that such managers shall conform to the conditions set forth in the Code."
    Take that along with the fact that the money is to be spent for educational purposes, as I have already explained, and that they are to be satisfied that the money is spent upon education. I think that absolutely disposes of an exceedingly hypothetical case, namely, that these schools were going to take the money and not spend it upon education at all. I was quite aware that under the provisions of the Bill there is no provision for distinction as between school and school, and I think the hon. Member will remember that during the Debate upon the Act of last year it was allowed that the Government did not intend to follow the English Act, in the direction of distinction between school and school, but they took the Voluntary Schools of Scotland as they existed, and they meant this to be a grant to all those Voluntary Schools. The necessitous character was not insisted upon on account of any particular delimitation of certain schools. I do not, however, go back upon that. I hope I have now given the information the hon. Member requires, and I hope,
    496
    also, that I shall not be held as at all concurring with the quotations which he has attributed to me, which I do not.
    CAPTAIN J. SINCLAIR: When we come to the question of audit, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has just said. He defends the regulation on the point of the audit on the ground that no further regulation or improvement in the system is necessary He, in fact, defends the system in vogue before we succeeded in getting the Government to accept the Amendment which is now embodied in the Bill, and it was pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman last year. We wish to see an improvement by the insertion of the words which the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced in the English Act. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that there was a misunderstanding about the matter, and went on to say that there would certainly be an audit, and he was perfectly willing to insert the words of the English Act. That is very satisfactory so far as it goes. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us that Scotch Education was going to contain that provision, but now he entirely ignores the intent and purpose of the condition of the Act of last year, and throws us back on his defence of last year by saying that the audit is at present sufficient. Our contention last year was that the audit was not sufficient. I do not want to trouble the Committee with details, but, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman says the inspector is responsible for the audit. I am sure he is well aware—for it has been many times repeated—that inspectors were appointed for educational requirements. Educational inspectors were appointed not to examine into the finances of the school, but in order really to examine into the education of the school. So I do not think that we lay upon them—at any rate, it has not been hitherto the system—the burden of auditing, and the responsibility of seeing that the accounts of the school are properly carried on. Then I should just like to remind the Committee of the very great difference of the position between the two sets of schools. In Scotland, the public schools are subject to a very strict system of audit. As the Committee well know, the

    497
    payment of Parliamentary grants depends upon the attendance register, and in the case of Board schools, not only have the accounts to be signed by the full Board every quarter, but the Board appoints a Visiting Committee, who take turns, and it is their duty to visit the schools, without notice to the teachers, and to compare the attendance register with the number of children present at the time of their visit. So that the checks upon any false register, upon which the payment of Parliamentary grants depends, are very strict in the case of Board schools. On the other hand, in the case of Voluntary schools there is no such requirement or inspection of register; there is no such responsibility on the part of persons who are not interested to visit the schools and to compare the attendance with the number of pupils who are registered. As a matter of fact it is left, in the case of Voluntary schools, to the manager of the school, who of all people is, of course, most interested in the amount of funds and the Parliamentary grant which he or they can obtain to carry on their school. I do not make these remarks in any spirit of hostility to the Voluntary schools; far be it from me to do so. But it is very desirable, in their interests as well as in the interests of the school system of Scotland, that they should all be put upon the same basis, and then there can be no criticism directed against them. Last year the right hon. Gentleman accepted this suggestion, and said that he agreed with us in principle, and we should be quite willing to accept whatever advance he thinks fit to make. To put myself in order I move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    MR. JAMES CALDWELL: The reason for this Motion was that the conditions were to be set forth in the Code presented to Parliament. We are, therefore, in this position, that when the Bill was undergoing discussion the Lord Advocate got rid of all questions of the condition under which the money was to be given to the Voluntary schools, because, he says, you find these year by year in the Code, and, therefore, he very conveniently got rid of the discussion of those grants. But now, when the money comes to be voted
    498
    it is our right to discuss the conditions under which we shall vote this money. Now, it is perfectly true that we might have some kind of discussion—an after 12 o'clock discussion—on the Code, but that has nothing whatever to do with the question that we are considering. With the Code before us, and the conditions set forth in that Code, the question now presented to us and this Committee is, shall we vote this money, looking to the conditions under which the money was proposed to be appropriated? And that is where the relevancy of our objection comes in now, because this is the stage at which the money is voted, and we are entitled to investigate the conditions set forth in the Code as to whether, looking at these conditions, we shall or shall not vote the money. Now, in discussing the question of the conditions of this grant, and what those conditions ought to be, we ought to have regard to the purposes for which the money was granted in England, because the Scotch grant was a preliminary to what was done in England. In England we find in the Act of Parliament that the object of this money was to help Voluntary schools and to increase their efficiency. Well, the whole object of the extra grant in England was that we were to give this money in order to promote the efficiency of the Voluntary schools, which, it was pointed out, were suffering from the competition of Board schools. It seems that these voluntary schools are to have this money, and we think there ought to have been inserted in the Code some condition that it was to be spent in such a way as to secure greater efficiency. Something, for instance, might have been said about certificated teachers, and the number of pupils to each teacher. On the question of audit, I think the Government have not treated the House fairly. Upon this question the English Act and the Scotch Act are the same, and it was specially provided in both, as a condition of a school receiving a share of the State grant, that the account of the receipts and expenditure in the schools should be audited annually in accordance with the requirements of the Department. The question of the audit was specially fought out, and the House unanimously came to the conclusion that there ought

    499
    to be an audit. Why, then, should we be considered unreasonable when we say now that there ought to be an efficient audit? What does the Lord Advocate say about this? He says there is a "kind of audit." Sir, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should say that because a school inspector goes to a school and looks at a book or voucher on any point on which he wishes information, and who has no responsibility beyond that, I am surprised, I say, that the Lord Advocate says that is anything like the audit which the Act of Parliament intended should be made. When you get the word "may" in an Act of Parliament it really means "shall," and in this case it was the unanimous opinion of Parliament that a provision for the audit should be specially put into the Code. The interest we have in this question of the audit is that these voluntary schools in Scotland stand in a very peculiar relation to the Board Schools. They are not provided with a public management, no one sees the accounts, no one knows how much they pay to one teacher or another, or for what purpose the money is applied. Sir, we want to be sure that the whole of the money given to the voluntary schools is spent on education and not for any other purpose. I am surprised that the Government in this matter have not seen fit to give us any assurance that the question of the audit, as prescribed in the terms of the Act of Parliament, will be granted. And I am sure no one need feel surprised that in a matter of this kind, which, beginning in Scotland, may extend to England, we should move a reduction of the Vote. We would be failing in our duty as Scotch Members if we did not insist on having the Scotch Act interpreted in accordance with the opinion of the whole House, and in accordance with the example which England has set in the interpretation of the same clause.
    SIR JOHN LENG: The understanding is that an equivalent grant shall be given to Scotland, and I wish to present to the Lord Advocate this view: that if an equivalent voluntary grant is given to Scotland in the shape of money it must be accompanied by the same conditions as those that apply to the English schools. This money, like other
    500
    sums of money, has practically been thrown at the heads of the people in Scotland. It was not in consequence of any strong representation from the beneficiaries of the grant that it was given, but having been given as an equivalent to the money given to England, the same conditions should be extended to Scotland. Many of us do not grudge that this money should be given to denominational schools, if we have anything like an assurance that it is to be applied and appropriated for improving the efficiency of the schools, but we do not wish this money to go to fill up any gap in the subscriptions of money under which the schools that are designated "voluntary schools" were formerly maintained. We wish to know why this very clear condition of a definite, distinct, and practical audit required in England should not be required in Scotland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman and learned Lord Advocate will see his way in some degree to meet our views in this matter. This question of an audit of the accounts is really a most important one, and I am rather astonished that those who are the friends of the Voluntary Schools see that by establishing a strict professional audit a great deal of the jeolousy and suspicion with which the position of these schools is regarded in Scotland would be removed. If there is nothing to conceal, if the money that is given to these schools is really devoted, as I believe in most cases it is, to genuine educational improvement, there would be very much less jealousy among the schools. Many of us were not in favour of the proposal of last year, but we did not object to anything being done to put the Voluntary Schools on a good footing. But they must be subject to the same general rules with regard to the audit of their accounts as are imposed upon Board Schools in Scotland, and upon the whole of the schools in England. That was the consideration which prevailed among the Scotch Members at the time the Act was under discussion last year, and, if the suggestion I have made were carried out, I think the difficulty will be settled, and the unfortunate antagonism which exists

    501
    between two classes of schools will be largely removed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will no doubt say we ought to discuss this matter on the Code, but that is difficult, because we are now voting money which is to enable the Code to be put into effect, and when the Code comes to be discussed, at two or three o'clock in the morning during the Session, we shall be comparatively helpless. If only because it is a business-like arrangement, an attempt should be made to carry out what was the intention of the House last year, and enforce a real audit of these accounts.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: There is surely some misconception in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what the audit of the School Board accounts is really for. All schools have to satisfy the Department that the money they receive as grants is being really and efficiently used for the purposes of education. I have already pointed out that there is not the slightest doubt that the machinery is sufficient for the purpose. But when you come to the audit of accounts that is another question. The audit of School Board accounts is for a purpose which does not exist in the case of the Voluntary Schools. There is not the slightest suspicion that the money is being in any way diverted from the purposes for which it was devised.
    MR. H. H. ASQUTTH: I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what did take place last year. My hon. Friend behind me moved an Amendment which made it compulsory that the accounts receiving any share in the grants should be audited. I, amongst others, supported that Amendment. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, like the Vice-President in the case of the English Act, would give the Committee an assurance that he would insist upon an audit. The Lord Advocate said that—
    "As one member of the Council he could not give an absolute promise, but he was quite certain that the Scotch Education Department would make such regulation as in their view would assure a proper control, and that the money would be properly spent."
    Some of my hon. Friends were not content with this. The right hon Gentleman
    502
    was pressed further, and he finished by stating that there certainly would be an audit. He thought—
    "There was a good deal of misunderstanding about the matter. He had said that there certainly would be an audit, but that he could not bind himself to there being exactly the same regulation as was provided in the English Act. He thought that under the Bill as it stood, they had exactly as much power, but that he was perfectly willing to insert the words of the English Act."
    We are entitled to ask how far that pledge has been fulfilled. So far as I can understand, there is no audit in any real and effective sense of the term. I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division, in order to obtain an expression of the feeling on both sides of the House that, as regards the expenditure of the money, we ought to have better security that it shall be applied in a proper manner.
    *MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I must say I am surprised to find that there is no audit at all. I am still more surprised at the explanation given by the Lord Advocate. What does that explanation amount to? It comes to this: that an audit is practically valueless, and therefore the promise he gave us of having an audit is one that involves no fulfilment whatever. The Lord Advocate knows perfectly well that most of the Members on this side of the House were altogether opposed to the provisions of that Scotch Education Act. They were not in favour of the mode in which the Government chose to spend the money, and certainly one reason we had for insisting upon an audit was to see that that money, which was going to be given to the Voluntary Schools, should be expended in securing the efficiency of education. Certainly, none of us on this side of the House felt sure that that money would be expended in securing additional efficiency; we had good reasons for believing that a great portion of the money would be expended in relieving the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools. Therefore, it becomes necessary that we should have something like a reliable audit, so that we may

    503
    be able to see that the money voted by the House is being expended, as we hope it will be, and as it ought to be, in securing efficient education in the Voluntary Schools.
    MR. CALDWELL: This discussion illustrates the inconvenience of the Secretary of Scotland not being a Member of this House. We are asking the Lord Advocate to carry out this audit. But the Lord Advocate cannot do anything. He sits there representing the Department, he is the advocate of the Department, but he has no instructions, and no matter what may be said upon this subject he is powerless to do anything. Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am in order in pointing out the position in which we stand at the present moment, in that we have no one in power to deal with this matter, after a full discussion in this House. I think that is a very unfortunate state of matters in regard to the Education Department, for we are supported by the voice of hon. Members opposite; I believe every one of them would back us up in this matter. What use is it raising the subject, when we don't have a Minister in power here to say that he would consider the matter and introduce it into the Code. This grant, given to the Voluntary Schools just now, marks a new departure altogether. Up to the giving of this grant Parliament treated Board Schools and Voluntary schools without distinction. Now that this new distinction was introduced for the first time, Parliament was entitled to say—
    "If you are going to have nearly the whole of this money out of the Imperial taxes, then you should at least let us see that the money is being spent for the purpose for which it was granted."
    In this particular case, all that we are asking is to carry out what is down in the Act of Parliament—that there ought to be an efficient audit, in order that this money might be spent for the improvement of education only. We do not control the expenditure, but we are entitled to see that the money is expended on the purposes for which it was intended.
    The Committee divided on the Amendment.—Ayes 115; Noes 197.
    Original Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS V.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary Sum not exceeding £85,000 be granted to Her Majesty for grants in aid of the expenses of the British Protectorate in Uganda and Central and East Africa, and under the Uganda Railway Act of 1896."
    MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is entrusted with explaining the policy of the Foreign Office, would have given us some explanation of the position of affairs in Uganda, and all the more so as the official statement recently presented to the House is exceedingly disappointing. It is very difficult to make out what had taken place during the time covered by the dispatches contained in that book, and a great deal has subsequently occurred of which nothing of an official character is publicly known. Looking on the matter as a speculation, our occupation of Uganda and East Africa has not been very satisfactory, and I, for one, have always protested against it, and foreseen that it would be unsatisfactory. I find that last year the Estimate for Uganda was £161,000. Now we are asked for a Supplementary Estimate of £85,000; and there is a prospect that next year the sum demanded will be so preposterous that the Secretary to the Treasury has already deemed it necessary to distribute a special memorandum in order to quiet our minds with regard to it. I do not wish to go into the whole question of Uganda, but I am bound to point out that, as a matter of hard fact, we were originally drawn into this Uganda business by the Chartered Company, which, having first made a Treaty with King Mwanga, sent up troops, and there were wars and massacres, and all sorts of things of that kind. That Company, having compromised us somewhat seriously, called upon us to come to their aid when they were at the end of their own resources. Sir

    505
    Gerald Portal was subsequently sent into the country, and a British Protectorate was declared in 1891; but it was specially stated that the Protectorate was over Uganda proper, and the boundaries were specified. The Protectorate then consisted principally of the provinces of Uganda and Buddu, but at present we find that that Protectorate has extended itself over Unyoro, Usoga, and Kairrondo. Yet, Sir, we have had no Paper presented to the House of Commons specifically describing these additions to Her Majesty's Empire. We have had no Blue Book stating precisely what has been taken over. I know there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who feel a patriotic glow whenever they hear of another wretched swamp or jungle in Central Africa being added to our Empire, and it is a little unfair to them not to know what we have taken over. I think it will be admitted that it is a very strong measure that all these great districts should be included in the Protectorate without our knowing what has been done, or any information being given to us as to what we have incorporated in our Uganda Protectorate. I am not going at the present moment into the question of the expedition to find out the sources of the River Juba. The first dispatch we have before us on the subject is from Lord Salisbury, on the 9th June, 1897, informing Major Macdonald that it had been decided to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the country, and that with this view he should proceed to the Juba. That dispatch would reach Major Macdonald about the 9th of August, for it would take two months to communicate with him, but we find a dispatch from Major Ternan, which is dated 25th June, that is to say a few days after the first dispatch was written, and long before it could have been received, stating that the whole thing had been done. But it seems to me pretty clear that we have not had all the dispatches which passed between Lord Salisbury and Major Ternan. A good deal must have been concealed, for we find that whilst Lord Salisbury ordered a thing to be done, Major Ternan wrote to him to tell him that it had been already done. Who was responsible—Lord Salisbury or Major Ternan? Major Ternan gave instructions to Mr. Jackson, but I have never discovered from the Blue Book what were the positions
    506
    of Major Ternan and Mr. Jackson. So far as I can make out, Major Ternan was Acting-Commissioner in Uganda. But in any case, Mr. Jackson was told to collect 300 Soudanese, 100 Swahilis, and 100 porters; and I am inclined to think that these porters were slaves, because they were to be paid only ten rupees per annum, and that at a time when they knew they would have to undertake terrible risks in this expedition. It is admitted in his dispatch by Mr. Jackson, that the pay of these Soudanese was much in arrear, and there was a considerable amount of discontent amongst them. Even Tommy Atkins, though he loves his country, would be discontented if he were not paid for six months. Some of these Soudanese had been the troops of Emin Pasha. They raided the country, committing outrages. They were hostis humani generis, and yet we took them over, and made them the garrison which was to maintain British rule in Uganda. I cannot help thinking that it is not surprising that there should be a feeling against our rule in Uganda when we took such men as these and made them our garrison. It appears that these Soudanese, with a number of Nubians, who were only given a small amount of pay, were left in various parts of the Protectorate to keep down the Ugandese. These men, it appears, insisted upon having a minimum of three wives each, and no doubt the villages were raided to get the daughters, or even, perhaps, the wives of the Ugandese, to supply the requirements of these remarkable warriors. Well, now, Sir, I come to the beginning of the recent events which have taken place in Uganda. So far as I can understand, at the commencement of June everything was supposed to be going on exceedingly well, the Ugandese being charmed with our civilisation, and delighted with the extension of our Protectorate. But on the 23rd June Major Ternan writes to Lord Salisbury saving he had arrested three Chiefs of the Soudanese who had incited the lower classes to revolt. Two of them were men of considerable importance, and one of them was mentioned as being at the head of 25,000 men. When Mr. Stanley was in that part of the world, a good many years ago, at any rate, they were the chief supporters of King Mwanga. On the 9th July King Mwanga was reported

    507
    to have fled to Buddu in the south of Uganda. We have no explanation in these papers of why King Mwanga did so, but evidently there was a movement against him, and these men, his chief supporters, were desirous of inciting the lower classes to revolt. Then, on the 23rd July, information is sent that Mwanga had gone to German territory, and that we had followed the rebels, and that, as usual in these cases of African warfare, they had been defeated, and their villages burnt down. At the same time information was sent that Mwanga had been deposed. Now, the succession to the crown has been somewhat singular in that country since we have been there. The population of this country consists of many who are worshippers of Fetishes, many who are Mohamedan, many who are Catholics and Protestants, and we have declared, in a sort of Electress-Sophia policy, that the King must be a Protestant. Now, King Mwanga was a practical man, sometimes of one religion and sometimes of another. I do not think I ever heard of any man who was more eclectic in religion; in point of fact, to make use of a nautical expression, he boxed the religious compass all round. I see it is stated that his son Chua is only two years old, and, therefore, cannot be very strongly confirmed in the Protestant faith. Then it is thought that this child might die, so permission is asked to change the Electress-Sophia sort of succession, so that a Catholic nephew might succeed, if this boy should die. The King's son is a Protestant only two years old, but "as it is possible he may die in his infancy," instructions are desired as to his successor. There is a very curious phrase in the dispatch as to this child—
    "I propose to take steps to proclaim his son, named Chua, a young child, being baptised as a Protestant."
    Now, what on earth that means, I really do not know; but it appears that that course was taken, as we know from the despatches. Now, the disturbances which we were led to suppose were quelled, were not. We heard nothing more for some little time, but the next information we have was that these rebels who were vanquished were concentrating in Buddu, and that an army of 10,000 men were going to be marched against
    508
    them. I notice whenever disturbances take place we always use the opportunity to annex something in the neighbourhood. We were told of what was taking place in the Uganda Protectorate, and I cannot but think Uganda had a very good reason for the course they took; but we were told that there was no fear that Uganda would be mischievously influenced thereby. What do we find? We find that Archdeacon Sinclair takes quite a different view. Speaking of the position of the country in the summer, he says a great part of the population of the Uganda Protectorate was secretly hostile to us, and that any reverse to our arms would turn them against us. That is the position of the country so far as I understand it. They differ in a great many things, but, with the exception of a black gentleman, named Apollo, they unite in disliking us, and all are only waiting for an opportunity to rise against us. Now, one would suppose that when the Soudanese garrisons were discontented, but had to be kept there to maintain our rule, we should not have chosen that particular time to move three companies in order to see if Major Macdonald had discovered the sources of the Juba river. I should have thought that that might have waited until matters were in a more settled state. But they were sent to Major Macdonald to find the sources of the Juba river precisely at that time. I find that these men were used first at Karronda to suppress an insurrection there, but they were then sent to Buddu, which is at the other end of the Protectorate, and then marched back 350 miles and were taken outside the Protectorate to join this expedition of Major Macdonald's, although it was known at the time that they were discontented. It has been admitted that they were legitimately discontented because they had not received any pay for six months. What do you think would happen to our Army here under similar circumstances? With all respect to our Tommy Atkinses, supposing you agreed to give them, not the shilling a day you are promising they shall have, but the ninepence a day you have been giving them; and supposing instead of paying the ninepence a day you said you would owe it to them, they would be discontented in spite of all their patriotism and love of their

    509
    country. I find that these men did eventually reach Major Macdonald, and they at once told him they declined to join him in this expedition, and they at once commenced to march back to Uganda. They fell back on the Ravine Fort, and here discussions took place with Major Macdonald, in the course of which they told him that they were ill-paid and ill-fed, and that they had been obliged to leave their wives in Uganda, where they were afraid they might be badly treated by the Ugandese; and that was not surprising when they knew that rebellion was going on all over the country. They naturally thought their fields and their wives would be in danger at the hands of these people. They further stated that when they were enlisted, they were enlisted on the distinct and explicit understanding that they were not to go beyond the Frontiers of the Protectorate of the Uganda. When you give men land in such a way as this, and when you make them a species of Volunteers or Militia, but not an absolute military force, it is only probable to suppose that they would require to spend some considerable time on their land. They are there for the purpose of defending the country in times of danger, and are not there to be used for the purposes of an expedition to look for and discover the sources of the Juba river. Therefore, I think, it was a very fair case which they made out. The firing, I think, commenced on the part of Major Macdonald's forces, but, at all events, firing at these men did take place, and they then continued their march back to Uganda. They fell back some 40 miles, when more fighting took place. Here there was another Uganda garrison, which immediately joined them, and which imprisoned its officers and carrried them along with them. On the 17th October they reached a place called Fort Lubwas, only 70 miles from Mengo, on the Upper Nile, and only a few miles from where the Nile emerges from Lake Victoria, at what we used to understand was the Frontier of the Protectorate of Uganda. There, I regret to say, they then killed their officers. The next day Major Macdonald came up with them, and righting took place, and he explains in his dispatches that his great object was to imprison them in a fort on that side, and to prevent them
    510
    passing over the Nile, and so crossing into Uganda. But on the 9th January they escaped from the fort and crossed over the river; and the explanation of what then took place is very vague. But what happened seems to be that they took canoes and crossed Lake Victoria in order to get to Budda. At any rate, they seemed to have burned and destroyed a steamer which we had on the lake, and what has taken place since we do not exactly know. We do not know where these Ugandese are, and we do not know what is going on in any part of Uganda. All that we do know is that a demand is made for Indian troops to hurry up, and it is stated that it is absolutely necessary, if we wish to maintain our hold on that country, to keep at least 500 Indian troops there. We know the Mwanga has escaped from German territory, and is in the country, but it is impossible to tell where, and that is why I wish the right hon. Gentleman to give us a little further information as to the communications of these district. Now, Mr. Lowther, I have always been against this Protectorate. I have never troubled myself as to who were the persons in power who are responsible for it. I have just steadily decided to oppose everything which is brought before the House connected with Uganda. It is a question whether it is desirable or not for us to retain our position in Uganda; but I have always thought there is a special reason why it is not desirable that we should assume the protectorate of that country. My impression is, if you wish to retain your hold on that country, not only will you have to send these 500 Indian troops, but you will have to send in the end a large quantity of English troops. The place is a long way from the seashore—700 miles from the seaboard; between that and the country of Uganda there is a country in parts desolate and in parts inhabited by savage tribes, called the Markets, and I know perfectly well, when we take it under our protectorate, the next demand will be for money to build a railroad; and though we know a railway is being asked for, we do not know what it will cost. We are told that there would be markets there, but I do not believe, myself, in taking over this country near the equator, where Europeans cannot live or thrive. The

    511
    same principle was laid down by Sir Robert Peel. He it was who said I am always in favour of the natural expansion of the country, but only in such places where Europeans can live and thrive. Here you have to deal with a quantity of Africans who are not civilised. You have to tolerate slavery, and, at the present moment, you are doing so. And, though you may get some small amount of trade, you will not get anything like a trade commensurate with the expenditure, risk, trouble, and responsibility, which you assume by assuming a protectorate over this country. With regard to the markets, I have got the latest Foreign Office and Diplomatic and Consular Reports on trade and finance. This is a Report of the 18th February, 1897. I find that it is stated in this that the last six months' imports were 240,620 rupees, whilst the exports were 150,895 rupees. That is a mere trifle. But we are told that the imports are due to the effect of the administration and the Europeans who are sent up there to administer the country, and that they themselves required these goods for their own use. On the other hand, the only export of the country appears to be ivory. Well, we know that ivory is, every year, decreasing in all parts of Africa, and it is impossible to count on that for any length of time, or to depend upon it for export. Then we are told that coffee, rice, cotton, tobacco, ground nuts, castor oil, etc., can be crown there. Yes; but so they can in a large number of other places, where they can be grown better. Our old friend, the India-rubber tree, is trotted out in the Reports, and we are always told they will be able to cultivate the India-rubber tree. But at the present time, there is almost a war going on between the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office in West Africa. They both have armies, and when asked what they are going to do, they say we are going to cultivate India-rubber trees, and flood the world with India-rubber. It looks as if the Foreign Office wants to cut out the Colonial Office in this particular matter. Now, there is a very remarkable thing in regard to this report. We are told that the great object of this is that we may be able to send out our cotton goods, and so promote the interests both of Manchester and
    512
    Lancashire. Now, I have found a little statement in the Report, which reads rather curiously with regard to the interests of Manchester and Lancashire. It is stated there, that—
    "Cotton has been grown by the natives from very remote times. It is sometimes woven into coarse cloth by means of the primitive native hand spindle and loom, but at present, owing to the existing large imports of manufactured cloths, it is more generally used by the natives as lint. There, seems, however, to be no reason why the introduction of a mill should not eventually produce a first-class material for use throughout the Protectorate."
    That is what, Sir, we are to be called upon to spend money for. In order to establish cotton mills in this country; in order to free them from having to import cotton goods from Manchester and Lancashire. Well, if these Gentlemen are going to support the policy of the Government because they hope that it will tend to the increase of our markets, they will look, I fancy, a little askance upon the suggestion that public money should be spent for the two purposes of establishing cotton mills in a place where, if porters can be got for 10 rupees a year, there is every probability that the operatives will be found to work a mill at a similar wage, when by so doing we shall deprive Lancashire and Manchester of all the benefit of all the exports that the opening of these markets would give them. We were compromised by the Chartered Company at the commencement. We drifted into this Protectorate, although I myself was opposed to it; and we have now drifted into all those troubles which have taken place in Uganda. I quite admit it would be impossible to withdraw our troops at the present time, but it seems to me that our main object ought to be to get these people to establish some form of government there, and then to withdraw. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] You may laugh at the idea. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are certainly in other parts of the world very fond of withdrawing. They seem to me, when there is any question with regard to Africa, to send good money after bad. Surely we may form an opinion now as to whether we are gainers or losers by having this Protectorate over Uganda, and whether we shall be gainers or losers by having this railroad. I know the

    513
    reason why hon. Gentlemen do not want to withdraw. It is not merely a commercial speculation. They have an idea that we may open an inner line in Africa from the Cape to Alexandria. Well, unfortunately, hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot be gratified in that, because below Uganda Germany steps in and impedes this inner line. Lord Salisbury himself has spoken most strongly against it; but, in default of this, we want to have an inner line, which will give us the whole of the Nile Valley. Therefore we would use Uganda as the point to which to work up, and we use it as a point to which to work down. That, I think, clearly gives what the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government are. It is not, I submit, so much as a good speculation as because they want to keep the whole of the Nile Valley. Under existing circumstances, I am perfectly certain that they could not withdraw this Protectorate of Uganda, but I am speaking of it as a business speculation, referring alone to Uganda, nothing more. I say the speculation is a thoroughly unsound one. Now, I don't think it is necessary for hon. Gentlemen who vote with me to take my views upon this question with regard to the whole of Africa. I think that they may fairly vote with me on the score that they think that things have been thoroughly badly managed at Uganda, that they object to this system of setting blacks against blacks as we have in that country, and that they regard it as perfectly monstrous and iniquitous that at the very moment when there was an outbreak in Uganda we should withdraw a portion of the garrisons in order to encourage an expedition which certainly might have been undertaken on another occasion. It is sometimes said that now that the money has been spent it has got to be paid. I perfectly agree that when the money has been spent we have got to pay. I perfectly agree that in this case the money has been spent and we have got to pay it. We cannot make Lord Salisbury or the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs pay. We have got to pay it. But, Sir, we have to act up to certain forms of the House. We cannot bring up a Resolution protesting against the action of Her Majesty's Government. We have to ventilate these matters either on the Supplementary
    514
    Estimates or the Estimates for the year. A reduction is moved, and a Vote is taken; not that we object to the payment of the money, but that we protest against the mode in which the money is expended. As a matter of fact, when a reduction is moved—and I am one of the few Members of this House who have ever carried a reduction on the Estimates—we come to an arrangement with the Government, and we put it back upon the report stage. It is in this way that I ask the House to consider it, and in order to meet the suggestions made to me by one hon. Gentleman I will not move, as I had given notice to do, that the reduction should be £40,000. To make it clear, my specific object is to simply move a reduction of £1,000. That, Mr. Chairman, I beg to move.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: In seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend I should like to mention to the House the reason which appears to me to be the strongest possible reason, in support of the reduction my hon. Friend has moved. But, Sir, before I touch it, I desire to ask one question of the Government. We have twice, at Question time, asked what information they had with regard to the return of Mwanga, the king, from German territory to Buddu. The Papers which the Government have now laid before the House go to show that Mwanga was taken over by the German Commissioner of the Frontier, who wrote, as though he made himself responsible for Mwanga's action. I want, therefore, to ask the Government whether they have no information of the circumstances under which Mwanga came back into Buddu from the German territory. Having asked that question, I should like to put, as strongly as possible, the grounds upon which I rise to support my hon. Friend, and which are different from those which he has put before the House. Now, Sir, Major Macdonald has for several years been held up as a man who was a special enemy of these Soudanese, and who had caused the death of their chosen leader, whom, on a charge of insubordination, he had committed to prison at Zanzibar, on the road to which he died. The Soudanese have, undoubtedly, always held that Major Macdonald

    515
    was responsible for this. Now, was it not, therefore, a mad thing to put these Soudanese under the command of Major Macdonald? Did not everyone who knows the facts say months ago there would be trouble if these men were placed under Major Macdonald's command? It was prophesied many times before it occurred, and what occurred was certain to occur under the circumstances of the case. Now, Sir, these Soudanese are probably a collection of ruffians, but whether that is so, as my hon. Friend thinks, or whether it is not, have we not broken faith with these men, and, ruffians or not, ought we to have kept faith towards them? My hon. Friend put that in the course of his observations to the House, but he did not press it, nor give the grounds upon which that opinion was formed. Now, Major Lugard, who engaged these men, has written a book on the East African Empire, and in the course of that book vol. ii., p. 213) he states the conditions under which he engaged these Soudanese. He says—"I undertook, pending a reply from Egypt"—we have never heard what that reply was, or whether there was a reply—
    "not to order any of the Soudanese to the Soudan, or beyond the Frontier of Unyoro."
    That is to say, he pledged himself that they should remain with their wives and children in the territory of Uganda. What are the circumstances, what are the conditions, under which this Soudanese garrison was taken over from the Company, after Major Lugard had engaged them, by Her Majesty's Government? They are the only conditions described in any of the Uganda papers, and I undertake to say, from the inquiries which I have made, that there are no other conditions outside them. In Africa, No. 8, of 1893, the conditions of the enlistment of the Soudanese are described, and they simply say—
    "These men are merely taken over without anything being said as to terms of service."
    Now, Major Lugard had promised these men that they should not be sent
    516
    outside the province in which he had gathered them. I undertake to say, therefore, that you undoubtedly broke faith with these men when you ordered them to march upon an expedition which my hon. Friend has described as being in search of the source of the River Juba. Now, Sir, we shall not be in order in discussing what this expedition was about; that will arise on the next item; but, Sir, we know that this expedition was one over an enormous distance; it was going for hundreds of miles to the north; and I say, Sir, you broke faith with those men. You tried to take them upon that march, and, ruffians that they might be, you ought to have kept faith with them. Now, Sir, they put forward grievances which are practically admitted in the Paper before us to have been legitimate grievances. I say you broke faith with them. You have put them under the command of a man, of all others, that they had reason to distrust and to dislike, and who had been, as they thought, the cause of their present grievances. And how were those grievances dealt with? And how were the lives of those three British officers sacrificed, and two other jeopardised? On page 22 of the Papers it is stated that they wished to see Major Macdonald, to say they could not go without their women and children. He did not ask them anything, but said—
    "No. 1 Section, shoulder arms, right turn, quick march; and then the same to No. 2 Section."
    That was the only reception they met with when they went to complain of a breach of faith towards them, and of conditions which could not reasonably be imposed on these men, under the circumstances of the case, and when they had actually in their power at that moment the three European officers, that they proceeded to murder, as their relatives believed, under circumstances of revolting cruelty. I do not defend these men. I say they are ruffians; it has always been our opinion that they were ruffians, towards whom you broke faith, and whose revolt was produced by the circumstances of the time. Well, Sir, the ultimate result was

    517
    the murder of three officers, and subsequently the murder of two others. An inquiry into the conduct of Major Macdonald may be promised. Meanwhile, the action we are here to attack is the action of Lord Salisbury in sending Major Macdonald to command these troops and it is on that point, and that point mainly, that I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    MR. H. M. STANLEY: I do not think I can support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton for the reduction of this Vote. I would rather vote for an increase of money towards repairing the mischief that has been done in Uganda. Sir, I find myself for once in accord with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Northampton and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. I have no reason to have any great affection for these Soudanese people; I know them thoroughly, and I know the iniquities which they have committed. At the same time, Sir, they were brought to Uganda on certain terms, and I think the promise then given to them ought to have been kept. They are the worst men to be put in any expedition to any distant country, and are entirely incapable of marching. They have a custom of taking their families with them. Now, in this case, their families were forbidden to accompany them, and they were also to be taken to a distant country, which they knew nothing at all about. At the same time, they were wearied with their many travels, for altogether they had travelled over 1,300 miles. Now, on exploring expeditions we generally halt every 500 miles for a week or a month, according to the privations that the people have undergone. But in this case no attempt whatever was made to conciliate them, and what strikes me in the whole of the White Book is the absolute want of considerateness towards these men. Wicked as they were, spoiled as they were, after 13 years of licentious life in the Equatorial Province, we must admit that since Colonel Lugard brought these men
    518
    to Uganda they did excellently, but needed a continuance of justice, firmness, conciliatoriness, and considerateness to keep them loyal. But, in spite of that, poor Major Macdonald is ordered by the Premier to take 300 of these people to the source of the Juba, to explore the northern Frontier. Major Macdonald arrives at his camp on the 20th September, and the first column is marched off on the 21st, the second column on the 22nd, and the third column on the 23rd. Now, I do not wish to attach any blame to any particular officer connected with the Uganda Protectorate, either to Major Ternan or Major Macdonald. I do not wish to enter into the controversy between Colonel Lugard and Major Macdonald; and I think most of the questions propounded this afternoon by the hon. Member for Northampton may be very easily answered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. When I came across the letter of instructions by Lord Salisbury to Major Macdonald, I found the following words—
    "You will, of course, be careful in all your dealings with the Natives to avoid any steps likely to bring about a collision with them, and you will maintain strict discipline among your escort."
    Now, it seems to me. Sir, that if there was another paragraph following that—such as: "Be considerate to your troops"—I think this mutiny would have been avoided, and we should not have heard of any conflict there. Suppose, if in the expedition conducted by Sir W. Lockhart, lately in India, after the troops had travelled and fought for many months, they had been ordered to suddenly march into Thibet, imagine how all the troops would have complained, and what a grievance they would have had. Now, if Major Macdonald had asked these Soudanese if they were willing to march with him, and if he had given them some small things they wanted, I do not think we should ever had heard of this mutiny. Sir, we are trying to make a Christian country of Uganda. We have already succeeded to a great extent. They have 320 churches in Uganda, and several

    519
    thousand youths know how to read and write. I have had letters from Natives, and voluminous notes of what is going on, just as if there were a special correspondent on the spot. But what will be the effect upon these people if these mutinies continue? It will destroy all our prestige, all our hopes, all the good work that we have done. The Natives are very strong; and if they joined the Soudanese they could soon destroy all the English in Uganda. Therefore, I feel obliged to urge upon the Government that they should send these young officers, who are out there, the special advice that they should be considerate towards these coloured people. Last year—the last two years, I think—the country has been in rather a bad state, owing to several revolts and this late mutiny, and there can be no improvement if young offcers are not advised to treat their men fairly. If these people were trained white soldiers, of course they would never think of expostulating with their commanders; but these half-savage tribes must be treated in a kindly and fatherly way; officers must advise with them, and ask them if they have any grievances, and, if they have, try to rectify them. By these means, I am quite sure, we need entertain no fear of Uganda, no matter of what races these coloured troops are. I should also like to urge upon the Government that, as things went very well in Uganda while Mr. Berkeley was there, there should have been an able Sub-Commissioner sent there to take Mr. Berkeley's place when he retired. If we had had someone with Mr. Berkeley's mental calibre there, to take his place in case of being incapacitated by illness or accident, I do not think this disaster would have taken place. In our other Colonies we have Governor-Generals and Lieutenant-Governors, and, as we have a Commissioner in Uganda, it would seem advisable that we should have a clever and competent man to take the place of the Chief Commissioner during his absence. Another thing I should like to urge upon the Government. It is now two and a half years since the House of Commons voted over £3,000,000 for the construction of the Uganda, railway, and at present, I think it is only about 100 miles long.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): 132 miles.
    MR. STANLEY: Thank you. I am very pleased to know it. It ought to be 232 miles. This railway has really a connection with this business, in this way—that these men complain of not being paid. Their pay is poor, and yet they have not been paid for six months, and Major Ternan is in a quandary as to how to get goods. He thought of buying them from the German side of the lake, because it would save trouble and expense. If this railway was pushed on, that would be another preventive against these disasters. That is the reason why I did not rise to support the reduction of the Vote, but rather the increase of the Vote to push on this railway, because only by the completion of this railway shall we secure that there is no revolution in Uganda.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: With regard to any observations I have to make I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, and they may be conveniently grouped under the heads that have already been touched upon to-day. I will endeavour to follow the right hon. Gentleman who makes the statement on behalf of the Government, and to summarise as shortly as I can some of the points which seem to me to be the most striking and the most important, as suggested by the Papers before the House. Sir, I will not attempt to go into the question of general policy. The hon. Member for Northampton, in moving his Amendment, I think, has admitted that a retirement from Uganda is not possible, at any rate, is not possible now, and, if retirement is not possible now, then I think it is absolutely necessary that some steps should be taken to supply a reliable force for the safety of the people who are in Uganda at the present moment, and that is what I gather that this Vote is intended to provide. Sir, we have before us in this Blue Book the sad story of misfortunes, one misfortune after another. I cannot criticise what may have hap

    521
    pened to cause these misfortunes, with the same authority, the same intimate knowledge of the probable circumstances and probable difficulties, which the hon. Member for North Lambeth, who has preceded me in this Debate, possesses. But there was one point which he raised which certainly did seem to me to be the most important in the whole of the Blue Book, and that is what is the cause of this Mutiny? What has been the cause of all the troubles? Sir, the cause seems to me, and must undoubtedly to anyone who reads the Blue Book, be that the Soudanese had become discontented from having too little pay, from that pay being often in arrear, and from being asked to do too much work. The Soudanese have shown themselves, when not under control, to be capable of the most gross excesses, but, on the other hand, they have shown themselves for a considerable period of time, when under good control, to be effective soldiers, and have done the work which has been asked of them satisfactorily and uncomplainingly. Major Macdonald has said in his Report that under good officers these Soudanese make good soldiers. What has been at the bottom of their discontent on this occasion? I believe, either the question of their pay, or the fact of that pay being in arrear. In addition to that, I think the main cause undoubtedly was that too much work was asked of them. In the first place, beginning last year, there were some troubles on the borders of the Congo State, then there were troubles at Cabarona, and the Soudanese were marched 250 miles to suppress that revolt. From Nande they were taken back to Buddu, a forced march of 300 miles. They were then taken back another forced march of 350 miles. That, altogether, is 900 miles, to say nothing of the hard employment and constant righting that took place at the three separate places to which they went at the end of their 900 miles' march. They had constant fighting, and they were told that they were required to start at once on an expedition to the north, through a country of which they had heard most unfavourable accounts; so that, I think, is no doubt the cause of the discontent, and what I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say in his reply is whether we are correct in the conclusion we have drawn, and whether, what the hon. Mem
    522
    ber for Lambeth has stated is substantially the cause of this discontent of these men; and, if so, whether he will not give us some assurance, which, I suppose, he will readily do, that in future care will be taken that whatever forces we have in Uganda, the conditions of the work and the rate of pay shall be such as to prevent any possibility of these troubles being caused again in the same way as they have been already. So that that is my first point. Then, one or two other things strike me in reading the papers. It is curious that the Soudanese, being discontented and being overworked, no warning was given to Major Macdonald, whom the Soudanese were going to join. No warning was given to him of the condition of the Soudanese. Major Macdonald says on page 26 of the Blue Book that when the Soudanese arrived they—
    "Were much overworked by the marches and counter-marches they had been through lately, were deficient in native officers—only one of the three companies had a captain—and were by no means in a high state of discipline.
    Sir, it seems to me strange that no warning was given to Major Macdonald as to what the men had been through, and what the condition of the force was. There is another point. These Soudanese, who were appointed to go with Major Macdonald, had apparently never been told what arrangements were being made for the support of their families while they were away. And on page 28 of the Blue Book Major Macdonald himself says—
    "The men appeared to be quite in the dark as to any arrangement for the support of their wives and families."
    And the men apparently did not hear of this till after they had mutinied. The opinion was expressed that the conditions would have been satisfactory to the troops had they been known at the time, but then things had gone too far. This was apparently Major Macdonald's own opinion as to the cause of the Soudanese mutiny. Sir, when the Soudanese struck—when they refused to go forward when they deserted—the question arises whether it would have been possible to have taken more rapid measures to prevent the mutiny from spreading, and especially to prevent these Soudanese from joining the others in Fort Lubwas. Well, Sir, that criticism has been made. I have

    523
    seen it in the Press, and it is one upon which it is very difficult for us to pronounce an opinion. Twenty-two days, I think, were taken to march 170 miles to Lubwas, and Major Macdonald, with his forces, arrived just one day after the first mutineers had reached the garrison of Lubwas, and induced them to rise also. On that point I do not know whether there is any further information to be given, but it certainly is an important one with regard to what happened afterwards. Immediately afterwards we come to what is the saddest and most distressing thing in the whole of these events—that is, that Major Thruston, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Scott were made prisoners in the fort, and were killed. Sir, we know, and everybody knows who takes any interest in these parts of Africa, that there is in this country a great desire on the part of officers and others to obtain this sort of service, which needs courage, which they know entails danger, and which, nevertheless, they are ready and willing to accept and eager to obtain. But, Sir, we know, and they must know, that when they go out they must run great risks, and that in these uncivilised parts of Africa there must be loss of life; but the circumstances under which these three lives were lost are exceptionally distressing. I notice that in the report we have before us all we have heard so far is that one sentence of Major Macdonald's—"I regret to inform your Lordships they murdered their prisoners." I do not know whether any more information is forthcoming, but we should like to have more information, not only on that point, but also as to whether it would have been possible for Major Macdonald to have arrived at Fort Lubwas in time to enter into any negotiations to gain any time during which something might have been done to save the three Europeans who were prisoners in the fort. Major Macdonald himself was on the alert as to the urgency of the situation. He says, when he arrived at Lubwas—
    "I would not allow firing, because I hoped to secure the release of the European prisoners."
    It seems to me, when Major Macdonald took that point, he acted with judgment—he seems to have been alive to the necessity of gaining time for entering
    524
    into negotiations, rather than proceeding to use force. Then I gather from Major Macdonald's own account that he was driven to use force because the mutineers would not enter into negotiations, but attacked him—attacked him before he attacked them, and he was obliged to defend himself. An account of that is given very shortly. This was a critical moment. Major Macdonald has given his account of it in a few sentences. If there is any more information as to what attempts were made to enter into negotiations as to whether the mutineers absolutely refused any communications whatever, I think that would be interesting to the Committee, and would do all that we can hope can be done, at any rate now, to throw a little more light on what is the most painful event in the whole of this Blue Book. Those are the points which really I wish to raise, but although they are criticisms upon what has happened, I put them with considerable diffidence, and I would be far from wishing to state them as the result of definite conclusions. In cases of this kind, I do not know how it may be with the hon. Member for North Lambeth, or people like him, who can feel their way through the Blue Book of this kind with much greater certainty than we who have never been in Africa can do; but it seems to me that we who have to judge these things entirely from the point of view of men who have lived at home, must exercise great caution in criticising what has been the conduct of men in responsible positions in Africa in times of danger. I have raised those points, not in the way of prejudging them, but rather to invite the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and especially to ask him whether he can throw any more light upon those points which strike me on reading this Blue Book. In Africa, in the undeveloped parts at any rate, men are placed in positions where they have no system to depend upon; a system does not exist apart from the men. When matters become settled there is generally a system, which, if even the men break down, will keep things going for some time. But in Africa, particularly in districts like this, which are not settled, Europeans have to do the whole work by means of a force which is different from themselves in

    525
    race, in colour, in religion, in traditions, and in training of every kind; and what strikes me, in the whole of these matters in Africa, is not that these troubles occur as they do, but how it is that so much work is got through in such a small time and with such a small proportion of Europeans to the Natives employed. The individual European officer, with his decision, his courage, his character, is the centre of the whole organisation and authority—he has to bear a load of responsibility himself, he has to bear it alone often, and has to do it under conditions of climate, and sometime of unforeseen circumstances, which place an extra strain upon him, often at a time when his strength has been reduced by the trying nature of the climate. At the same time, we do expect, and, no doubt, we shall receive, some assurance from the Government that they are taking measures to supply a force for the Uganda Protectorate different to any which has been there before. I think the Committee cannot possibly be satisfied unless they feel that measures are being taken which will render occurrences of this kind in Uganda beyond the bounds of probability, at any rate, and I assume that this Vote is proposed because the Government are themselves impressed with the serious nature of the situation, and because they consider it is urgent that there should be some force in Uganda, on the spot, some force of a reliable kind which, I hope, will be capable of placing matters on a more substantial and a more reliable footing than we have yet been able to place them.
    *MR. CURZON: If I were to pursue this Debate from the commencement, I should find some difficulty in dealing with the opening speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, because, if I followed it at all closely, I should really find so much to contest. Whenever I hear that hon. Member speak upon East African affairs, I am reminded of one of those mirrors in which you see everything upside down—everything in East Africa seems to present itself to the hon. Member in a topsy-turvy position. Where most of us, I think, are proud of the civilisation which, following upon the policy initiated by our predecessors, we are introducing
    526
    in the neighbourhood of the Great Lakes, the hon. Member for Northampton sees in the action of our officers there, to whom so eloquent and so just a tribute has been paid, only steps taken by a party of marauding buccaneers. Where most of us look with sympathy upon that railroad which we are building in the interest not merely of trade, but of civilisation, the hon. Member finds in it nothing but a foolish expenditure. Where those who know, the country regard it as one of great possibilities in the future, he persists, in all his speeches, in describing it as either a desert, a jungle, or a swamp. Where we employ porters and pay them the regular wages of the country, the hon. Member for Northampton, with his superior sources of information, insists that they are impressed slaves; and, finally, where we have evidence, which I shall put before the Committee, that the bulk of the population, even in times of turmoil, have remained contented, he persists that they are simmering with discontent at our rule. I know that it is useless to contend with these illusions on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I think I am entitled, with the permission of the Committee, to dismiss them this evening, because they really result from that imperfection of vision on the part of the hon. Member which I have already described, and which, I believe, is not shared by a single other Member of the House of Commons. Before I proceed to answer the questions—the exceedingly fair and proper questions—which have been put to me from both sides of the House, perhaps I owe to the Committee some explanation of the rather remarkable figures in this Supplementary Estimate. It will be seen that we are asking the House for an additional sum of £40,000 for the Uganda Protectorate, and £35,000 for British East Africa. Of the latter sum, £25,000 is for the Macdonald Expedition. The remaining £50,000 is required for a number of causes to which I will allude. The first is the disturbance in the East African Uganda Protectorate, to which I will refer in a few moments. The second cause is one that enables me to answer the questions just put to me by the hon. Baronet. He has pointed out with great force, and recent circumstances have proved that he is right, that a new and more reliable force than that which

    527
    we at present employ in the Uganda Protectorate is necessary. There is no doubt that the present system has broken down. It has been shown that it is not a safe thing to rely exclusively upon the loyalty or the service of these Soudanese garrisons. These soldiers have been exhausted by long marches to and fro, their discipline has been undermined, and as a force they are neither strong enough nor numerous enough to defend the extended tract of territory now under our control. Under these circumstances it has long been seen that a new force must be organised for the purposes of that Protectorate, and even before this rebellion broke out it had been decided that the military force of the Uganda Protectorate should be reorganised, and in future should consist of a battalion of 700 of the best of these Soudanese men, 700 Swahilis, and 400 men recruited from India. This will, of course, entail a large increase in our annual expenditure, but it is one which I hope, in the interest of the Protectorate, the House will not grudge. The third cause of this large additional Vote is the new transport scheme, which is being organised for communication with the lakes. The present system has cost us about £16,000 a year, but like the military organisation, it has proved inadequate to the strain that has been put upon it. We have had to depend for the most part on private enterprise, which has shown itself in cases of emergency to be unreliable. We have had great difficulty in obtaining porters, and since the construction of the railway began, the rate of wages has gone up very much in consequence of the competition thereby caused. Well, Sir, this new transport scheme along the road to the lakes will cause an expenditure for the first year of a little over £40,000, and will subsequently cost about the same as the annual sum now required—£16,000 a year. Of course, the Committee will see that the charge will annually diminish in proportion as the railway is pushed forward, and as we carry by steam what is now carried on the backs of men. Then the fourth cause of this expenditure is this: that pending the arrival of the new force, to which I have alluded, we have been compelled to refer to the Government of India for their assistance—of course entirely at the expense of the
    528
    Imperial Government—an assistance which has been liberally rendered, one entire regiment having been sent some time ago to Mombasa, the greater part of which is on its way to the Lake, whilst a wing of a second regiment is at the present moment being organised in India, and will shortly follow to Mombasa. That is, briefly put, an explanation of the increased expenditure which we are now asking for. I may further explain that this increased expenditure is asked now, because the greater portion of it will fall within the expiring financial year.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that a portion will not fall into this year?
    *MR. CURZON: I think that may possibly be so, because I can hardly conceive it likely that the whole of this sum will have been expended by the end of the present month. I now turn to the subject about which I have been asked to many questions this evening—namely, the expedition of Major Macdonald and the unfortunate mutiny that has broken out in his camp. I gathered from something which fell from the right hon. Baronet that he proposed to raise the question of the instructions which were given to Major Macdonald, and the policy of the expedition on the next Vote.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Briefly.
    *MR. CURZON: Therefore, I think I had better postpone what I can assure him will be an equally brief reply. In answer to a question put to me, I may say, however, that the expedition of Major Macdonald went by the Uganda road for this reason. In the first place they had the advantage of the railway, made, as I pointed out, for 130 miles, and of the excellent Sclater road, which runs from the termination of the railroad to the lakes. Then there is, of course, the much greater cheapness of transport by the railway and the road than would have been possible by any other avenue of approach; and, finally, there was the question of the escort, which it was thought more desirable and cheaper to provide to Major Macdonald from Uganda than from India. Major Macdonald had got as far

    529
    as the neighbourhood of the Ravine Station, when, on September 20th, he was joined by three companies of the Soudanese force from Uganda, which had been sent down to meet him. The bulk of these men started off the next day. They at once revolted and fled. They refused to come in and discuss their grievances, in response to a request made by their officers; and they retreated to the lake, arousing, as they went along, the garrisons of their own fellow-countrymen and fellow-soldiers in Nandi and in Mumia's, until they finally arrived at the Fort of Lubwa's, on the northern shore of the lake, where they also induced the garrison to rebel, and where they intrenched themselves and awaited further attack. Now, Sir, we come to the causes of this revolt, and I shall endeavour to satisfy the questions that were put to me by the hon. Baronet opposite. I am glad to notice a very marked difference, both of argument and in tone, between the suggestions of the hon. Baronet as to the causes of the mutiny and the innuendoes made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Charges.
    *MR. CURZON: The right, hon. Baronet's speech must have left on every one the impression that he brought a direct charge against the Government and its officers, that this rebellion was due to the action of Major Macdonald, who had been placed in command of the Soudanese, that the Soudanese remembered old sores and avenged themselves on him by at once declining to remain in his service. I think it is perfectly clear from the evidence that has been placed before me that this mutiny had nothing whatever to do with Major Macdonald. It was due to circumstances long anterior in their origin to the appearance of Major Macdonald on the scene. The right hon. Baronet implied that there had been a want of consideration shown by Major Macdonald to these men. That is not the case. If the right hon. Baronet will look at the Blue Book, at page 23, he will see that Major Macdonald, at an interview with one of the captains of this regiment, Hussein Effendi, made to him a number of very substantial concessions,
    530
    in response to what he understood to be the request of the Soudanese. Their desire to take their women has been already spoken of. He promised that each man might take one woman, and that extra rations should be allowed to these women. When they represented that they were tired and weary, he offered that they should take donkeys to help them on their march, and that they should make short marches, as he knew they had just come from a long period of marching. These concessions, I think, indicated a desire on the part of Major Macdonald to meet the men in a most reasonable spirit; but, unfortunately, it appears that these concessions were not communicated to the men by their native officers, and that the bulk of them marched away unconscious of the dispositions made for their comfort. What, then, were the causes of the mutiny? They had nothing whatever to do with bygone history, in so far as Major Macdonald was concerned, and, whatever may have been the history of the past, I must confess I think it is a little unfair on that officer, placed as he was in circumstances of grave peril and trouble, that he should be attacked in this House as he has been by the hon. Baronet without, so far as I can see, any shadow of evidence. I turn now to the consideration of the real causes of the mutiny—the grievances of the mutineers. I think they were very correctly expressed by the hon. Baronet on the Front Bench opposite. No doubt these Soudanese soldiers, marching about as they had been for the repression of petty revolts, east and west, and north and south, in the Protectorate for many months past, were fatigued and in no high spirits; and it is not unnatural that, hearing that they were to march off again, they should resent this expedition into an unknown country, from which many of them thought they might never return. There was the question of the women, of their being ill-rationed and illfed in the past, and there was the question of the conduct of their officers. It appears that the soldiers had made complaints because the young English officers appointed did not in some cases know their language, and had difficulty in communicating with them. Another cause for their resentment was being

    531
    placed under civilians, the existing staff of officers being insufficient, and these grievances, added together, undoubtedly constitute grave cause for inquiry and redress. I at once accede to what the hon. Baronet has said. We must have a thorough inquiry into the causes of these grievances, and they must be redressed; and as we are starting this new military organisation we must see that it is free from the blemishes of the existing system. Now, I pass to the narrative of events. I have carried the history up to a point at which the mutineers reached Fort Lubwa's, and then a long interval occurs, from October 19th to January 9th, during which period they were being besieged by Major Macdonald and his forces. In this space of time there were repeated combats. The first took place on October 19th, and it was after this that Major Thurston and Messrs. Wilson and Scott unfortunately met with their deaths. Now, the hon. Baronet opposite asks whether proper efforts were made by Major Macdonald to assure the safety or to obtain the release of these men before any fighting took place. On that point we have no information beyond that printed in the papers, where it is clearly stated that upon arriving at the fort Major Macdonald refrained from hostilities, with a view to entering into negotiations for securing the release of these brave men. Those negotiations had no result, and the next morning, being attacked by the mutineers in full force, he had no alternative but to resist. The battle ended in the defeat of the Soudanese, who retired to the fort, and, in the indignation and revenge of the moment, murdered these unhappy officers who were under their control. Of course, if any further information arrives on the matter I shall at once lay it before the House; but so far as we know it does appear to be one of those melancholy, but at the same time unpreventible, incidents which are likely to occur in warfare with that class of men. Hon. Members have asked why there was this long delay in besieging Lubwa's. It was due to the want of ammunition on the part of Major Macdonald's force. He was not strong enough, and his force was not sufficiently
    532
    well armed and provided with ammunition to enable him to attack the fort. Further engagements took place on November 24th and December 11th, and at last, on January 9th, the Soudanese garrison escaped from the fort across the lake. They were thought at the time to be marching on Uganda, and Captain Harrison was dispatched with a force to operate against them, but the latest information, dated February 11th, is that the Soudanese force, which must have been very much reduced in numbers by the fighting, is still at no very great distance from Lubwa's, to the north of the lake. Now I turn to the other points of interest, and I will endeavour, with the permission of the Committee, to explain the present situation of affairs, or, at any rate, the latest situation as reported to us by telegram. The main force of Major Macdonald—he himself having gone elsewhere—was left in the hands of Captain Woodward, and he is apparently on the northern shores of the lake. At Kampala, which is a European station, Mr. Wilson, who has been acting as British Commissioner, and has apparently shown the greatest discretion and foresight throughout, represents to us that all the Europeans are contained in a strong fort incapable of being taken, and are well supplied with ammunition, much of which has been very courteously supplied to us by the Germans from their stations on the southern part of the lake. They are also well furnished with provisions. The Soudanese garrison at Kampala, consisting of 330 men, whose loyalty was suspected, have been disarmed, and in that locality which, of course, is the most populous and important centre of the Protectorate, there seems to be, as far as we know, no present cause for fear. Then, Sir, as regards the movements of Major Macdonald. He went to the Province of Buddu, which is in the southern part of the Protectorate, early in December, to reinforce Lieutenant Hobart and the Soudanese Garrisons who had remained loyal in that quarter against King M'wanga. Now, the right hon. Baronet asked me to-night—and he has more than once before asked me—if I would explain the circumstances under which King M'wanga escaped from German territory, but I am sorry to say

    533
    that I cannot. We know nothing but the fact. We know that he crossed the border into German territory last summer, and was living near it. Representations were made to the German officers requesting them to remove him as far away as possible from the border, because of the troubles that his presence there might cause. What answer was returned to this request I do not know; but, anyhow, it appears that the ex-king escaped from his confinement by water, and that he turned up again in the province of Buddu, and, with as many materials as he could find, at once set to work. Our latest news from there is that at the end of January he was defeated by Major Macdonald, and therefore I hope that the trouble there is coming to an end. It is satisfactory to know meanwhile that all the other Soudanese garrisons, consisting all told of 850 men, have remained loyal. Finally, as regards the military dispositions that were made to meet this crisis, the full forces of the British East African Protectorate that were at Mombasa, or in the interior, were at once pushed forward by Sir Arthur Hardinge, who happened to be in that locality. When the outbreak occurred an Indian regiment, 750 strong, was dispatched from India, and five of its companies are now on the lake, the remaining three companies being at the rail-head waiting to be moved forward, while an additional wing of 360 men is about to follow from India. These are the simple facts of the case as they are known to the Government, and they are all the facts that are known. Now, what do they show? Do they not indicate, Sir, that this rebellion, both in Uganda and among the Soudanese, is just one of those events to which a small European force, military and civil, at a great distance from home, with a long and most imperfect line of communication, and relying upon an alien garrison, is from time to time exposed? There is nothing to show that these events have been due to any policy of rash adventure. On the contrary, they have been due to the steps which we have taken in pursuance of the policy initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, as we all know, seldom did anything adventurous, and never did anything rash. There is
    534
    nothing to show that these events have been due to any administrative blunders on the part of our officers, civil or military. They appear in reality to represent one of those inevitable risks that an extended Empire like ours must bring in its train. The hon. Member for Northampton seemed to imply that not merely had the Soudanese risen against us, but that the whole country was in revolt. That, Sir, is not at all the case. When King Mwanga started the first rebellion in the summer of last year none of the principal chiefs joined him, and he fled almost alone.
    AN HON. MEMBER: No.
    *MR. CURZON: If the chiefs were with him, why did he not stay and fight? What cause was there to flee?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Have not two of the principal chiefs remained with him?
    *MR. CURZON: Yes; but I should like to read to the House what the character of one of these two chiefs is.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Why?
    *MR. CURZON: He is represented as a very drunken Roman Catholic chief, in very bad odour with the priests.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Read on. Read the next one, please.
    *MR. CURZON: I prefer not to read it now. Hon. Members can read it for themselves, nor do I think it is very material. What I was endeavouring to show was that this rebellion has not been at any moment since the first rising last year a popular rebellion. On the contrary, we have over and over again heard from Kampala that the Native chiefs and the population have remained loyal to us there, and at the only point upon the Uganda road where the natives have risen against us it appears from reports that they rose because they thought that the mutineers, who were marching through their territory, were Government troops, and as soon as that delusion was shattered they settled down again. Sir, it is gratifying to find, as the hon. Baronet pointed out, that our officers on the spot—many of them young men placed for the first

    535
    time in positions of great responsibility—have conducted themselves throughout this difficult emergency with courage and resource. I hope that the steps which we are now preparing to take, and which I have indicated to the House, will effectually prevent any recurrence of these incidents, and that they will result in the consolidation of the dominion which we have acquired in that part of Africa.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: Allusion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Uganda railway, which, I understand, will be 150 miles long. Inasmuch as the gauge of this railway is different to other railways throughout Africa, I desire to know whether the Government will consider the propriety of altering the gauge, so as to secure a uniform gauge throughout the whole of the African railways.
    *MR. CURZON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman expects me to give him an affirmative reply. The whole question was gone into by a Committee of experts, and it was decided that the gauge adopted was the best—i.e., the most suited to the country and the purposes in view. As regards the delay in the construction of the railway, that has been due, in the first place, to sickness amongst the staff in the fever-stricken districts; secondly, to the engineers' strike in this country, which prevented the orders for engines and rails from being executed up to time; and thirdly, the disorganisation consequent upon having to move this large body of troops to the front.
    COMMANDER G. R. BETHELL: I do not wish to cast any aspersions whatever upon the proceedings of Major Macdonald. The suspicion that may arise in our minds is fortified by what has been said by my hon. Friend behind me, but I am disposed to suspend judgment upon the action of Major Macdonald. I regret extremely the very vigorous attack upon this officer made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. ["No, no!"] It left that impression upon me, and upon other hon. Members who heard the right hon. Gentleman's address. The House, at any rate, should suspend
    536
    any judgment that it might make upon the action of Major Macdonald and other officers, even though the dispatches might show that there had been a want of consideration displayed. Now, may I inform my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the Committee is being asked for large sums of money for these troops in various parts of the world, and which we are asked to vote en bloc, that I think we ought to have details of the wages paid to these various troops. There are no details whatever given; and one of the charges and suggestions that have been made to explain this rising was that these soldiers were not paid highly enough. It is quite impossible for us to form any opinion unless a more detailed report is given. The hon. Member for Northampton, in the early part of his speech, took the occasion of this rising in Uganda to show the House how wise he was. The fact of the matter is that between every occupation that is, or has been, made in Africa or anywhere else, when it is managed by armed troops, there almost always occurs one of these risings. This is one of the difficulties with which you have to contend—a certainty that you have to contend with, and it is only one of the difficulties which invariably assail you in these affairs, and to suppose that we are going to get to Uganda, or West Africa, or anywhere else, without these difficulties, is against all previous experience. I only make these remarks by way of protest against the suggestions and insinuations that have been made against these men, who are struggling with great difficulties.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is one point upon which we have not received that amount of information which the Committee ought to have been supplied with. No one can doubt that this unfortunate rebellion would never have taken place unless this expedition of Major Macdonald's had been organised, and the remarkable part of it is that it was ordered by the Foreign Office in England, who are undertaking, in this dispatch, to determine the exact number and the constitution of the force. To my mind the

    537
    great question is—what was the meaning of this expedition of Major Macdonald? Those who directed it have exhibited the most extraordinary ignorance of the condition of the Protectorate of Uganda. Was the Protectorate of Uganda in a condition, under any circumstances, to send out an expedition, and to be denuded of forces, small as they were, to maintain this immense territory? We know that the Government have not been satisfied with the occupation of Uganda itself. I understand there have been forts in Unyoro—but, at all events, in the surrounding districts—which are not portions of the Protectorate of Uganda, and that those scattered forts were occupied by the Soudanese troops. What justification was there in a district which was notoriously unsafe for sending off this expedition, which was ordered on the 9th June? Curiously enough, the whole thing broke out before the dispatch arrived, which proves the extraordinary ignorance that must have existed at the Foreign Office when they ordered this expedition. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton made some allusion to the fact that Uganda was to be employed as part of a scheme for extending the British territory from the Cape to Alexandria it was received with enthusiastic cheers from the other side of the House. What we want to know is whether this expedition had that object in view, whether it was one of those unfortunate Hinterland expeditions for effecting occupation which have given rise to so many military disasters in Africa and elsewhere? I confess that when I read this dispatch of Lord Salisbury, of the 9th June, I was utterly unable to understand what was the meaning of sending these 300 Soudanese and 200 porters through territory which it was admitted was unknown, and was probably hostile. What was the object of sending such an expedition, considering the condition in which Uganda was at that time? We are, of course, always told when we embark on enterprises of this kind that everything is all right. I remember that when the occupation of Uganda was broached we were invited by Major Lugard to have the most profound confidence in King M'wanga. He told us that he was a man to be trusted. He had been a Catholic, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton
    538
    says, he became a Protestant, and now, apparently, he has become a Mahomedan. That was one of the great grounds held out as making the whole thing perfectly easy; we had only to walk in and enjoy ourselves, because the king was the most friendly and trustworthy person in the world. We are told about the feeling of the people, and the right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe, in spite of what the archdeacon tells us, that the whole of the people are with us. But the archdeacon has told us that the whole of the people are secretly hostile to us, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us no evidence whatever to rebut the statement of the archdeacon.
    *MR. CURZON: I quoted the evidence of Mr. Wilson, who is the Administrator at Kampala, and who has reported over and over again that the whole of the people are loyal.
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: But Kampala is only a small part of the territory. You are occupying an enormous mass of territory, not only in Uganda, but beyond, and there is no evidence to show that this population can be depended upon. The first dispatches speak of it more as a rebellion on the part of the Soudanese troops. What were these Soudanese troops discontented about in the work they had been called upon to do? The Soudanese troops had been exhausted in a contest with a discontented people. It is a remarkable fact that misfortunes and disasters of this kind have arisen in all parts of Africa from the settlement of chartered companies. You have not been fortunate in your chartered companies in South Africa or in East Africa. You have been obliged, from the settlement made by the Chartered Company in Uganda, to proceed, I think, with great rashness. They ought to have worked their way from the shore much more slowly. We found ourselves, and you find yourselves, in the position of being compelled to sustain that which had been done, but everybody ought to have seen that it was a position of great insecurity, a position in which you had no real hold upon the country at all; and in point of fact you ought to have taken altogether different measures and different

    539
    precautions from those that have been adopted in this case. I must say that, when the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to throw down a Party challenge to us, it was not a very discrect proceeding. He said that they had made a movement which was not venturesome or rash, because it was a movement we had made, and then the right hon. Gentleman added that we never did anything venturesome or rash. I accept that as a compliment, though I hardly think it was so intended. I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman is the able representative of everything that is venturesome and everything that is rash. Certainly, if he was the author of this expedition and of this dispatch of June 9th, from the Foreign Office, he may claim the credit of being both venturesome and rash; but I should like to know what he means by saying that we ever did anything of the kind. Where is the expedition sent forth under the authority of the Government which we represented of the character of this sent under Major Macdonald? On the contrary, when we saw that there was a risk with reference to advances made, we stopped anything venturesome or rash of that description immediately. It seems to me that these deplorable events—everybody must agree in deploring them—have arisen partly from a general discontent which exists, and has existed for a long time, in this district, and from the most unwise expedition of Major Macdonald, for which the Government is responsible. He was ordered to go on an expedition which, in the circumstances of the Protectorate of Uganda, was not justifiable; the number of troops was prescribed for him, and, as it turned out, they were totally unfit for the purpose. This unfortunate rebellion took place; loss of life has occurred, and, of course, we cannot do otherwise than our best to rescue the community of Uganda from the disastrous consequences which have arisen. This only confirms very much the opinion I have always held, and still hold, of the impolicy of entering upon enterprises of this kind without contemplating the consequences which necessarily ensue. It is folly to embark upon these enterprises and imagine that they are extremely easy, and that they will be very cheap. Thus year after year you find that they become more dan
    540
    gerous and more costly, and you come down for greater and greater votes. The result as to profit does not turn out what was hoped and expected, and you are committed to the people whom you encourage to go there. The people are sent there on representations which turn out to be unfounded. Then you have enormous Estimates of this character and very little return for them. As regards the Vote proposed, it is, of course, impossible to decline to vote that money which is necessary to repair the misfortunes that have occurred. One can only hope that these disasters will teach a lesson which will prevent such rash and venturesome expeditions as Major Macdonald's in the future. We are told that we are to establish a new military force there, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the cost will be very heavy. The Supplementary Estimates of this year amount to something like £100,000, and next year it appears, from the Estimates delivered this morning, it will amount to £142,000. After all, I believe this sum, if it is intended to retain anything like the secure possession of the country, will prove entirely inadequate.
    DR. G. B. CLARK: This is a very curious Estimate; we are asked to vote it because the money is not to be spent this year. It ought to be put in next year's Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has very cleverly evaded the charge made by my right hon. Friend below me in seconding the Amendment. He did not attack Major Macdonald; what he did attack was the Foreign Office and the Government for the course they took, for the dispatch which had been sent on the 9th June. In that dispatch the Commissioner was ordered to make arrangements for sending 300 Soudanese for going outside Uganda. That was a breach of faith, or else it was done ignorantly. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Well, Colonel Lugard is still here, and possibly you will give us some information to-morrow. Unless Colonel Lugard, has been inaccurate in his dispatches, and in his book, then the Foreign Office were ignorant of the fact that the Soudanese were enlisted under certain con

    541
    ditions —that they were to remain in the territory and not be sent beyond it. I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position taken by the right hon. Baronet. The facts as far as I know are as follows: when the first company of the Soudanese came in, Major Macdonald saw the commander and gave him information and then marched on. The second company came in the next day, and they refused to go until they got information. They came before Major Macdonald for information and he refused to say a word, except "'Quick march,' out of the place." They replied that they would desert. It may have been a blunder on the part of Major Macdonald. He thought, probably, that the commander would give information both to his own company and to the company that came in afterwards. The first contingent was satisfied and the second was not satisfied, for when they went for information it was absolutely refused. They determined not to obey. Captain Fitzpatrick, who followed them, talked to them, and they remained on good terms until the war was begun by the firing of a volley during the negotiations. It may have been a blunder on the part of Major Macdonald, but certainly the second troop coming in did not get the information they wanted, and they deserted because of that. They expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the arrangements if they had only got the information. That was exactly the condition of affairs. I hope to know to-morrow whether the statement of the right hon. Baronet is true or not as to the conditions under which these men were engaged. As to the general subject, there were two or three questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. We want to know why King M'wanga disappeared and began this rebellion against us, and why all these troubles arose. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton pointed out that when we took over this territory there would be bloodshed, and there would be more money required. The result has been that his prophecy has been borne out. There has been more war and bloodshed during the time we have held Uganda than there was before, and the likelihood is that there will be still more bloodshed, because you have a but the better and more efficient weapon at the
    542
    present time. The blunders out there, however, have not been so bad as the blunders of the Foreign Office at home, in sending out the instructions they did.
    MR. A. SPICER: A charge has been made that there has been a breach of faith with the Soudanese. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs explain to us his belief as to whether there was a breach of faith with the Soudanese?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, at the same time, to tell us what constitutes the Protectorate of Uganda at the present moment? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman how it comes about that Lord Salisbury, on June 9th, sent orders that certain specified men should be taken to join Major Macdonald, who sent these to Major Ternan, who on the 28th June, before he could have received the orders, wrote to Lord Salisbury to tell him that the whole thing had been done?
    DR. C. K. TANNER: In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State read one part only of the Report. I will read on—
    "and, as regards Mukwenda, who is Chief of Singo, the number of his wives has been the cause long since of his excommunication from the Protestant Church, and I can quite understand their dislike of European methods of administration."
    Why did not the right hon. Gentleman read that as well? Why did he run down one in order to praise the other? I will go further. I will take page 9 of Mr. Trevor Ternan's Report—
    "I should report to your Lordship that the missionaries of both creeds in Buddu and Koki are all safe. The French priests in Koki took refuge in German territory, but the English missionaries remained in Koki, and their so doing had a reassuring effect on the natives, and was a support to Kamswaga,"
    whoever that gentleman may be. He may be a relative of one of these chiefs, but the right hon. Gentleman must assure us on these points. I notice a

    543
    curious thing in these matters, and that is the House of Commons only get these Papers put into our hands at the last moment, without an opportunity of going thoroughly into them. Now, I want an explanation on another point—
    "The King may die in his infancy; I should be glad if your Lordship would instruct me as to his successor. There are at present two Roman Catholic nephews of M'wanga's, and a Mahomedan nephew. All these are children under the age of ten. There is no other Protestant member of the family available."
    My intention is not to hurt the feelings of anybody in dealing with these matters, but anything more ridiculous than that I never read; and while we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he made the other night, we hope he will do better in future, at any rate in connection with this matter, when he turns upon the Roman Catholic religion because it happens to be held by the French people—
    "The French priests in Koki took refuge in German territory but the English missionaries remained in Koki;"
    the French priests who, according to your own report, were turned out of the country, whilst the English missionaries are allowed to remain. I maintain there is a great deal to explain on the part of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. So far as I am concerned, I merely look the thing up because I consider the right hon. Gentleman did not do his duty to the House of Commons. He read a portion of a paragraph, and had not the courage of a man to read the remainder. I throw down the gage, and sincerely hope once more that the right hon. Gentleman will not do it again.
    *MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I understand in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said the expense would be in carriage by Porters from the head of the railroad. I should like to ask about the Sclater road he spoke of, whether it has been constructed so as to be able to use beasts of burden or wagons; whether the carriage from railroad head will be by wagon or beasts of burden, or by porters; and I should like him to say where the transport train organised by the late Captain Sclater
    544
    is, and whether it is now being used for carrying up supplies.
    *MR. CURZON: I will endeavour to answer the series of questions that have been put to me. As regards the transport train of the late Captain Sclater, I do not know at present where it is, but I will cause inquiries to be made. The road made by Captain Sclater is a very admirable road, and wagons will be used in future as a means of transport. With regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Northampton, whether I can tell him the actual boundaries of the Uganda Protectorate, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put down a Question, and he shall, if possible, be referred to the sources from which correct information on the point can be derived. As to Major Ternan's dispatch of June 25th, with reference to Major Macdonald's expedition, the hon. Member has been led into some confusion. The instructions of Lord Salisbury to Major Macdonald, contained in the dispatch of June 9th, which was printed in the Appendix of the Blue Book, were given to Major Macdonald a few days before he left England. An expedition had been decided on some time in advance, and instructions and communications had been sent to Major Ternan, the acting administrator, some months before. It was the result of those communications which was contained in the dispatch of June 25th. There is one other question to be dealt with, which raises an important point, for it amounts to a charge of breach of faith on the part of the Government. It was said that these Soudanese troops had been engaged on the condition that they should not be taken outside the limits of the Uganda Protectorate, and consequently that the proposal to place them under Major Macdonald for an expedition in other regions was a breach of the agreement with them. It is quite true that Major Lugard was the first officer to enlist these troops; but the Foreign Office have no record of the pledge given by him. I am told, however, that an engagement of the character described is mentioned in Major Lugard's book. But what hon. Members have forgotten is that there was a subsequent transaction. In March, 1893, Sir Gerald Portal re-engaged as many of these Soudanese as he could for

    545
    a new term of service, and the conditions then agreed to contained nothing about the service being exclusively confined to the Uganda Protectorate.
    DR. TANNER: I certainly will demand an answer to my question, which I have put down about these Roman Catholic members of the family of King Mwanga. If we go further down the Report we see on page 12—
    "Though, according to arrangements made by Sir H. Colvile, and approved by your Lordship, the two Roman Catholic nephews are debarred from the Throne of Uganda, it will, I think, be necessary, in case of the death of King Chua, to select either one of these, or the young Mahomedan Prince. The selection of the latter would be extremely unpopular among all classes in Uganda, excepting among the small number who form the Mahomedan party; and, under these circumstances. I would venture to ask your Lordship's permission to consider the elder of the two Roman Catholic Princes as the heir."
    When the right hon. Gentleman took up one end of the stick, of course, somebody had to pick up the other. I hope I am not wanting in courtesy, but I do certainly ask the question, where you have two tribes of the same people fighting each other for the so-called love of God.
    Question put,
    The Committee divided.—Ayes 55; Noes 212.
    After the usual interval—
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: The subject I have now to bring before the Committee is the second item of this Vote, which is described as—
    "British East Africa, Grant in Aid in connection with the disturbance in Uganda and with the expenses of the Juba expedition under Major Macdonald."
    And I beg to move—
    "That Item C (British East Africa Grant in Aid) be reduced by £1,000."
    Sir, the Juba expedition is the expedition of which we have heard so much on the previous item in connection with the employment of Soudanese under Major
    546
    Macdonald. At the commencement of the Session, I think on the first night on the Address Debate, I alluded to the fall which overtook the expedition as a disaster to Major Macdonald's expedition. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State complained of my use of the word disaster. I was perhaps wrong in calling it a disaster to the expedition. I should have said a disaster in connection with the expedition, which stopped the expedition going on. The matter we have been discussing, the revolt of the Soudanese troops and the murder of their officers, was the result of this mistake, and, I confess, I thought I was justified in calling it a disaster to the expedition. It has brought the expedition to an end, and now Major Macdonald is hundreds of miles away in the Southern province of Buddu, where he is commanding the forces fighting against King Mwanga. My object in raising the matter here to-night is because a matter of the very greatest importance is really concerned in the story of this so-called Juba expedition. The hon. Member for Northampton alluded to it just now as an expedition to discover the sources of the Juba river. He got it from the papers before the House on what is called the Juba expedition. Now, when you speak of the source of the Juba it is quite a different thing to speaking of the Juba. The Juba is the Northern boundary of the new British East Africa Protectorate, and runs down through the South of Somaliland into the Indian Ocean, between the British and Italian spheres of influence. It is navigable for 400 miles, and we know very little of where its sources are. When you talk about sources of rivers, you talk about something very different to the river itself. If I were talking of the Severn everybody would know I was alluding to a river in Gloucestershire and Hereford, but if I were to speak of its sources, then you would know I was referring to where it rises in the heart of Wales. So it is with the sources of the Juba, which are hundreds of miles away from what is known as the Juba itself. When the "Juba Expedition" is brought before this House, it suggests an expedition entirely different to what it was. If it had been an expedition to what

    547
    was originally called the Juba, it would have taken a direction through fairly well-known British territory. The sources of the Juba lie in an unknown British sphere of influence. Unfortunately, there is equal vagueness about the boundaries of the French sphere of influence, which is extending towards our boundary. Now, Sir, that is with reference to the Juba Expedition. There is the most startling evidence contained in the Papers which are laid before the House with regard to the real nature of this expedition, and to it I will invite the careful attention of this Committee. On the top of page 2 of the Uganda Papers you will find these words—
    "I have to acquaint you that I have received instructions that Major Macdonald is about to proceed from the coast to Njemps, whence he is to visit the source of the Juba River. The following arrangements are to be made. Supply 300 Soundanese troops, to include some Dinkas and Shilluks."
    Now, Sir, I daresay those words will make very little impression, because few of the maps show where the territory of these people is. Few of the maps throw the slightest light upon who these people are. But, Sir, some maps confirm what is known by men who know that territory best, and the most curious light is thrown upon the object of this expedition by those words, "to include some Dinkas and Shilluks." The territory of the Dinkas and Shilluks is not near the Juba sources. Those sources are undefined, and have wide ramifications over extended territory. There is a boundary to this district in the flow of the great river Nile, and the flood which rises out of the lake must undoubtedly cut off from the Bahr-el-Ghazel the sources of the Juba. I said just now that a large sphere of influence was entirely without any boundaries, and we claim the whole of the former equatorial provinces of Egypt. Sir, I said that there was an equally vague claim on the part of France, or in some sense on the part of France, because I believe that France does not nominally set up a claim of her own, but claims to act on behalf of Egypt, but, at all events, we have this fact, that the territories of these tribes, the Dinkas and Shilluks, from whom the Soudan troops going to Uganda are to be picked for
    548
    this expedition, specially on account of their knowledge of the language, lie on the Western side of the Nile, and not on the Eastern side, where the sources of the Juba are. Therefore, Sir, I say that throws a singular light on the intention of this expedition.
    MR. CURZON: All imagination!
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: How can it be imagination? Do you deny that the territory of these tribes is on the West side of the Nile?
    *MR. CURZON: I deny that they were included in the expedition on the ground alleged.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Why, in the preparations mentioned by Lord Salisbury for this expedition, the names of the two tribes of Bahr-el-Ghazel are mentioned. The territory of the Dinkas is in the most southern part of Bahr-el-Ghazel, and that of the other tribe, the Shilluks, followed beyond the territory of the Dinkas, and runs right down to the Western side of the Nile.
    *MR. CURZON: No.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I venture to say that no other construction can be put upon the objects of this expedition in selecting these tribes, except that these men are picked out to act as interpreters and guides. Now, Sir, the matter is one upon which this House has never been taken into consultation by the Government, although the initiation of the Juba Expedition cannot have cost less than £80,000. We know that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Northumberland, speaking for the late Government, declared that the whole of Bahr-el-Ghazel and the territory of the old Equatorial Provinces of Egypt were in our sphere of influence, and the entrance of France into these territories would be an unfriendly act. Now, Sir, that is a matter of extreme gravity, because since that time a French expedition, commanded by French officers, has advanced into that territory, and while at this moment it is probable that the territory of these Shilluks is occupied by a French expedition, it is certain that the territory of the Dinkas is in the possession

    549
    of the French. I say that this House has not been sufficiently informed of the objects of this Juba Expedition, the House has not been given sufficient information as to the project of the Government in this respect. When the Vote was put upon the Paper, we were not told that this so-called Juba expedition is to be accompanied only by the guides from the Shilluk country. It is now probably too late to consider the matter, but if you are going to send an expedition into this vast, vague, undefined territory, so far from all our sources of strength—if you are going to take this course, you ought to have entered upon it years ago. If it was to be done there has been monstrous delay in doing it, vast sums of money have been sacrificed, this disaster has occurred, and it has proved fatal to the chance of doing it at all. Although it is too late to express an opinion which could be of value as regards this measure, we have a right to express our censure on the concealment which has been practised by the Government.
    COMMANDER G. R. BETHELL: The whole of the argument of the right hon. Baronet has been founded on a probable ignorance of the facts. However that may be, it is quite certain that his view is that the schemes of the Government are improper and expensive. Simply because the map shows that the Dinkas' and the Shilluks' land is on the West side of the Nile, and that because in a certain despatch organising Major Macdonald's expedition orders were given to include certain Dinkas and Shilluks, that, therefore, it is going to take them into altogether unknown regions, seems to me an absurd position to take up. The right hon. Baronet says that the expedition to the Juba River, towards the Lagrudo, knowing nothing at all of the territory, it is natural to suppose that the expedition which is ordered to Juba is not ordered to that part of the country, but towards this unknown part which has hardly been traversed by anybody, and, indeed, that is a very good reason for an expedition in that direction. The hon. Member for Northampton, in his speech in the early part of the
    550
    evening, referred to the view which he supposed that Gentlemen on this side took of the occupation of Uganda, and with reference to the upper parts of the Nile. I agree that we do consider, and I believe that hon. Gentlemen on this side consider that the occupation of Uganda for political reasons alone, quite apart from more important ones, is of great value with reference to Egypt. So it appears to me to be not only natural, but it would be silly if we did not take the opportunity of sending some expeditions to inquire into those portions of Africa—to inquire into those provinces on the upper borders of the Nile. It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government, so far from being worthy of censure for having taken this course, considering the position in which we now are, they would have been deserving of censure if they had not made any efforts at all, the more so because, as we know, French expeditions have made investigations into those very quarters which the right hon. Baronet some years ago had reason to refer to in a statement which made much impression at the time. The statement was made, but it has not made much impression after all the years that have elapsed. So far from censuring Her Majesty's Government, I am very glad indeed, so far as I can, to give my support to the action they have taken, and to say that I think the expenditure that is necessary to redeem these operations is extremely well-worthy of consideration, for I hold the opinion very strongly that the accumulated wealth of the civilised nations of the world may, some portions at least, be very properly used in expeditions of this sort, which have a very good end after all, and in spite of difficulty, in spite of bloodshed, in spite of horror they entail, they do have the effect ultimately of bringing peace, civilisation, and good for us where now anarchy alone prevails.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: With regard to this expedition, it does not seem to me to show in favour of the particular capacity of the Foreign Office for dealing with a wild, savage country. The Foreign Office was not accustomed to deal with breechless blacks, and while in the first instance

    551
    it sometimes succeeded, in the latter instance it always failed. My belief is that if we are to retain Uganda—as to the advisability of which I have always had my doubts—I think it is well worthy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether they should not transfer the management of that place from the hands of the Foreign Office to that of the Colonial Office. As to this expedition, I think that the statement that has been made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is not to be dismissed absolutely with contempt, whether or not his view is well founded as to these troops, because the expedition is not what it professes to be, for the discovery of the source of the Juba, and the limits of the Italian Frontier, and an expedition further West. I do know that the right hon. Baronet's knowledge, industry and experience of Foreign affairs is such as to make his utterances in this House always interesting and such as everyone will not be prepared to dismiss either with contempt or with disregard. As regards that expedition, Sir, that is all I have to say. With regard to the vote certain other circumstances arise, and we are called upon to deal more directly with those matters which are indirectly brought into the Question. Sir, this expedition, I cannot doubt myself, from what I have read in the Blue Book, and from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth with so much authority has said, I cannot doubt that this expedition had its origin in orders from London. Sir, I am prepared to repudiate any attacks that have been made on Major Macdonald. The troops themselves distinctly say that they had no complaint whatever to make against Major Macdonald, at any rate they say they have no complaint with regard to him. I must say I was prevented from voting for the Government on the last vote because no reply was given by my right hon. Friend sitting below me to the extraordinary statements made by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. I ask whether or not there has been an absolute breach of faith?
    *MR. CURZON: I answered that question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was here during his speech, and he made no reference to it.
    *MR. CURZON: The hon. Gentleman was not here when, in reply to a question from an hon. Member opposite, I gave what I believe the Committee accepted as an absolutely clear answer to that charge.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I regret I was not here during the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I confess it only shows the necessity, when you are making a speech in reply to charges, of not leaving out of that speech your reply to the gravest charge which has been put forward. That was what the right hon. Gentleman did in his first answer, which I thought was the whole answer. The responsibility for this breach of faith does not rest on Major Macdonald at all. The complaint of the Soudanese is, that they were taken away from the country in which they had been engaged to serve, and I am very sorry I did not hear the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to that complaint, because up to this moment I cannot conceive how a good answer could be given. Now, with regard to the Vote of £35,000. The Committee have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that £25,000 of the Vote refers to the Macdonald expedition. But that expedition has been abandoned.
    *MR. CURZON: No.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." It will be found on Page 28 of the Blue Book that Major Macdonald, in a letter dated September 29th, 1897, said—
    "As, owing to the fighting in Buddu, it is quite out of the power of the Acting Commissioner to let me have other troops at present to replace those that have deserted, my force of Soudanese is thus reduced to sixty or seventy men. In the circumstances, I have been reluctantly compelled to abandon, for the present, my projected operations north of Lake Rudolf and in the region of the Upper Juba."
    *MR. CURZON: He says, "For the present."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to know if this expedition is abandoned for the present or for five years. There is no information that it has been resumed. The whole of this money is to be expended by the 31st of the present month, and if it is not expended, it will have to be surrendered. Again, on Page 37 of the Blue Book, under dale of January 14th, 1898—a more recent date—Sir Arthur Hardinge says:—
    "Major Macdonald being absent at Kampala, Captain Woodward writes to say that the Swahili soldiers who are with him cannot be relied on implicitly as a fighting force, and that it was only the personal leadership and the courage of their English officers which, in the recent engagements, prevented a disaster. It becomes a question, therefore, whether proposed recruitment of several hundred Swahilis for Uganda should be proceeded with."
    We have no further information to the effect that the expedition has been resumed. The last information from Major Macdonald is that he has had to abandon his expedition in consequence of the desertion of his troops. Then, Sir, I am compelled to ask myself why a continuance is made in the demand for this Vote when the expedition, for which the major part of the Vole itself is intended, is abandoned. Now I am coming to the most serious part—namely, the financial part. At the bottom of this Vote there is a note to this effect—
    "The expenditure out of the grants in aid included in this Estimate will be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but any balance out of the sums issued in the financial year will not be surrendered."
    Well, that, I think, is a very proper note. It is treating the House of Commons with frankness. It is intended to inform the House of the intention of the Government to keep in hand for further expenditure any balance that may be left unexpended. Although that is frank, I deny that it is possible. I venture to affirm that, under the Exchequer and Audit Act, and under the subsequent Act which regulates these matters, it is absolutely necessary that any unexpended balance which has not been spent in the manner for which it was voted should be returned and applied to the redemption of the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman has already told us that he
    554
    does not expect to expend all this money by the 31st of March, and when the Estimate was drawn up that expectation was entertained. I submit that grants in aid are in no wise different to other grants; that they are subject to the same rules and the same provisions and the same Acts of Parliament. No doubt, if you have grants in aid applied generally in aid of the Government of Uganda, or of Major Macdonald, you may expend what you please and retain the balance; but when you have, as in this case, a grant in aid limited to a certain purpose, to that purpose and that purpose alone can it be applied. We are told distinctly by the right hon. Gentleman that the purpose of it is this Juba expedition. Every farthing that he can spend of that £25,000 on the Juba expedition before the 31st of March next will be properly spent; but I challenge the contradiction of any financial expert in the assertion that every farthing that has not been expended before that date must be surrendered, and must go to the redemption of the National Debt. It is not in the power of this House to divert unexpended balances from one year to the service of another, however convenient it may be to a Treasury or to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may seem a slight point, but there is a very serious principle involved, and I have thought it right on this the first opportunity I have had to raise the question.
    *MR. R. MCKENNA: Mr. Lowther, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is under a delusion in thinking that he has given a satisfactory answer to the charge that has been made against the Foreign Office, that there has been a direct breach of faith with the Soudanese soldiers. He has quoted, in support of his vindication of the Foreign Office, from Major Lugard's book, but, unfortunately, the quotation he made use of had already been read to the Committee by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, in support of the charge. These Soudanese troops were engaged under certain conditions, and when they were taken over from the Company, no new conditions were made. To the ordinary mind it

    555
    would appear perfectly obvious that a soldier, re-engaged under those circumstances, would himself at any rate conclude that he was engaged under the original conditions.
    *MR. CURZON: That is exactly what the Soudanese soldiers have never supposed. The hon. Gentleman will not find, and I have not seen, in a single line of the complaints of the Soudanese any allegation of a breach of faith.
    *MR. MCKENNA: I do not say the Soudanese soldiers put their complaints into the form of a direct charge of breach of faith. That would be, perhaps, a metaphysical conception rather beyond them. The right hon. Gentleman has only got to look up the list of grievances alleged by Trooper—I cannot recall the name of the trooper at the moment—to find that those grievances include seriatum, a breach of the exact conditions of the employment of these troops by the British East Africa Company. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will disabuse his mind that he has answered this question, and give us a more satisfactory answer to a direct charge against the Foreign Office. Of the £35,000 we are asked to vote, £25,000 relates to the Juba Expedition. We do not yet know what the extra £10,000 is for. I assume it is in relief of the British East Africa revenue. I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention for one moment to the great neglect of the Foreign Office in not developing British trade at Mombasa. The complaint that I have to make is a complaint which is also raised by the representative of the Foreign Office in Zanzibar, Sir Arthur Hardinge. It appears that there is no line of—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Vote.
    *MR. MCKENNA: Of course, as we have no information as to how this £10,000 is made up, I could only assume that it was in relief of the British East Africa revenue, and that, therefore, my question was in order.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it could possibly be in order.
    *MR. MCKENNA: It might be better if I wait until the right hon. Gentleman has given us an explanation as to what this £10,000 is wanted for.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in respect to Item C.
    *MR. CURZON: Mr. Lowther, I think I can explain the matter to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. Of the total of £35,000, £25,000 is due to the causes already explained. The remaining £10,000 is the expense falling on the East Africa Protectorate, owing to the newly-organised system of transport which I have described. The East Africa Protectorate extends to some distance from the coast, and several hundred miles of the railroad will run through that Protectorate, which will therefore, be as much a gainer by the new system of transport as Uganda itself. As regards the point of a breach of faith, I confess I am totally at a loss to understand the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. Member. I explained at an earlier stage of the evening that the Soudanese soldiers themselves could not possibly consider their employment in the Macdonald expedition as a breach of faith, because in the terms on which they were re-engaged there was nothing whatever specified as to the area of their employment. The hon. Member says that the Soudanese are such stupid people that they could not be expected to understand what a breach of faith was. Surely, Sir, if a breach of faith had been committed, the men would have been the first to complain. It is a little fantastic that the persons making this charge should be Members of this House and not the men themselves. I venture to think that hon. Members opposite have been a little demoralised by questions of a breach of faith. I should have thought that their experience in another part of the world, in regard to which they brought a similar charge a fortnight ago, would have been sufficiently unfortunate not to have encouraged them to bring it again. I do not think the hon. Member or anybody else gave any evidence in this House in

    557
    support of the charge of a breach of faith. If the right hon. Baronet who has put several questions to me to-night will give me his attention, I will endeavour to reply to him. The right hon. Baronet jumped to the conclusion that Major Macdonald's expedition was an expedition to turn the French out of a position which they might have acquired or are supposed to have attempted to acquire to the West of the Nile. But suppose that we wanted to turn the French out of the Bahr-el-Ghazal, is it in the least likely that we should have sent this expedition to the Ravine Station, since it would thus have been diverted from its obvious and most easy track? I think these facts will show that there is no foundation for the suspicion of the right hon. Baronet, which, I confess, never occurred to me until I entered this Chamber to-night, and which came upon me as an absolute surprise. I remember last year that when we announced an expedition up the Nile for the recovery of Khartoum the right hon. Baronet would have it that the expedition was going straight to Darfur. In fact, he cannot get out of his head the provinces to the west of the Nile in Central Africa. Subsequent events have proved his suspicions to be groundless, and on the present occasion, I can assure him they are without foundation. If we turn to the terms of the instructions to Major Macdonald, it seems to me that they are very clear. I should have thought, as an hon. Member said on this side of the House, they would have been welcomed by the right hon. Baronet. It was he who, a few days ago, when we were discussing the Abyssinian Treaty in this House, blamed the Government for the manner in which they had left the territory between Abyssinia and this country undefined. We have heard a great deal about the source of the Juba. It is not the source of the Juba that is the question at issue. If the right hon. Baronet will refer to the protocol by which we fixed our boundary with Italy in 1891, he will see this definition—
    "The line shall follow from the sea the mid-channel of the river Juba up to latitude 6° North."
    558
    Nobody in this country knows where the Juba cuts that parallel, and it was to remove these doubts, and to determine what are the Frontiers of our respective Protectorates in that part of the world, and to make treaties with the native chiefs, that this expedition was sent out. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has spoken of the expedition as abandoned for the present, but our latest information is to the effect that Major Macdonald, after he has composed these difficulties in the Uganda Protectorate, hopes to resume the expedition originally planned.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will there be any prospect of that being done in the present financial year?
    *MR CURZON: As the expedition is not abandoned, it will, I hope, be resumed as soon as possible.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question as to the surrender of the balances? I attach so much importance to that question that my vote depends upon it. Can be assure me that the balances not expended at the end of the present financial year will be surrendered?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We have here an expedition, which we are told is to go to the source of the Juba river. We ask what the Juba river is: we are told that they know that the Juba river runs into the sea; but the right hon. Gentleman does not know where it goes before it goes into the sea. And yet he tells us that Her Majesty's Government and Italy have made a treaty in which this Juba river defines the line of frontier between two spheres of influence, and now they want to go about in a vague and indefinite way with this expedition to find out where on earth this Juba river is. You will be surprised to hear that sometimes we are almost fighting with foreign countries about questions of miserable titles, and yet we see what these titles are worth. We have not the remotest notion who are the people who live there. The

    559
    only successful persons connected with this expedition appear to have been the Soudanese. They inquired what sort of a country it was. They were told it was a waterless desert, and into this waterless desert they had to go to find the source of the river. The intelligent Soudanese absolutely declined to go one inch. I would have done the same thing myself. I want to know how much this expedition has cost already. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has said that £80,000 has been spent upon it. Is that the case, or is it not, that £80,000 has been spent upon it? Only the right hon. Gentleman won't find it in the Estimates.
    *MR. CURZON: £25,000.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Is this all that has been spent upon the expedition? Has any money been taken from the Uganda Vote?
    *MR. CURZON: No.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I understand quite clearly that this £25,000 is the only sum that has been spent?
    *MR. CURZON: In the current year.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: It must be in the current year. The expedition was only organised last summer.
    *MR CURZON: I mean, of course, in the course of the financial year that expires on 31st March.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: You ask for £10,000 in making a road, but that has not been spent.
    *MR. CURZON: I do not understand all this confusion. The whole of this money for which we ask, is expected to be spent in the financial year that expires at the end of this month. It is in the nature of an Estimate. The expectation is that the money will be spent before the end of this month.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We are now on the 3rd March, and the Ides of March will soon be passed. We will then get to the end of March, and that is the end of the financial year. Do I understand that the money has not been spent as yet, but that it is taken because it is
    560
    fairly believed that it will be spent in the subsequent three weeks of the financial year, or whether it is that the money is asked for in order to be spent next year?
    *MR. CURZON: The former is the expectation.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: If I were a betting man, I should bet that the money will not be spent in that time. Surely the Foreign Office has taken a full Vote, believing that the greater portion of the money will be required next year. But, of course, we must accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he believes in them himself. We must accept his statement that it is a bonâ fide sum, expected to be spent in the present year, because it is absolutely necessary that it should be spent at once. The right hon. Gentleman says that it has not been already spent; it is in case they may want it during the last three weeks of the financial year. It is a remarkable mode of finance. Then the whole question, as I understand it, raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn collapses and falls to the ground, because it is not a case in point. As I understand it, the hon. Member for King's Lynn has not got a case, for the money will be spent this year. Really it is most confusing. I shall vote, I need hardly say, for the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. It seems to me that money has been cruelly and wastefully spent in Africa, but I do not think there is an instance of money being so absolutely fooled and pottered away in useless objects as this £25,000. We are met with the monstrous statement by the right hon. Gentleman that, after organising an expedition like this, they are going to re-organise it next year. What troops are going? I should like to know that. The Swahilis are not going. The Soudanese are not going, because they will not go. Who on earth is he going to take with him? Surely, after the money has been fooled away, we ought to have a most specific explanation as to what the objects of the expedition will be, what it

    561
    is intended for, who are the troops who will go with Major Macdonald, and all and everything connected with it before we agree to the expedition being launched attain next year.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have not yet received an answer to my question whether the balance unexpended at the end of the present financial year will be surrendered.
    *MR. CURZON: No, it will not be surrendered; but if the hon. Gentleman desires further information I must refer him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 191.
    Original Question again proposed—
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: A point which I want to bring before the Committee is one of considerable interest. There are two considerations which commend to the Committee the Vote for losses sustained by the French missionaries during the conflict in Uganda in 1892. One is that the Roman Catholic missionaries are, taking them the world through, known to the Members of this House who are experienced travellers, as many of them arc, or great readers of books of travel, or attenders at geographical societies, as a body who have shown great devotion to the cause of humanity. Their services to the world at large, entirely outside their own communion, have been great. Those who are acquainted with their lives know that some of them go out into the far-away places of the world, being sometimes for forty years entirely away from civilisation, dwelling entirely by themselves without any ties of family which exist in the case of other exiles from their homes, and devoting their lives to the service of the world around them. There is another consideration, which at first sight would tend to commend this Vote to the House of Commons—or, at all events, to a great majority of the House—which is, that it would at first appear as tending to promote good feeling between nations, and,
    562
    therefore, serve the cause of peace. I feel one has to go very carefully into this matter, and consider what the merits of the case are before one can remove from one's mind the very natural prejudice in favour of such a Vote. But this matter is not a new one in any way; it was well known to us in this House in the past. We discussed hypothetically the subject of such claims as that covered in this item in 1891 and 1895. No further information has been laid before the House—not because the Government do not possess further information—Sir, the Government have that information; it is in the possession of the Foreign Office. I believe that two reports were called for by the Government, and Major Macdonald was sent to Uganda for the purpose of reporting on Captain Lugard's Report. Major Macdonald made a Report to the Government, which the Government have, and which, although it has not been published here, has appeared in Germany. When Major Macdonald was sent out by the Foreign Office to report on Captain Lugard's Report he was accompanied by a German newspaper correspondent, who, of course, sent the whole of the Report to Germany, where it was printed in the columns of the Berliner Tageblatt. But it has never appeared here, and no Government has ever ventured to lay it before the House. Sir, before we can upset Captain Lugard's Report, and reverse the opinion expressed upon its merits by successive Foreign Secretaries, we must insist upon having the Report of Major Macdonald which was meant to supersede Captain Lugard's Report. The mission has put us to an expenditure of £10,000, and it is impossible we can meet those claims on Captain Lugard's Report unless we have the Report of this further mission. Now, Sir, it is, I believe, admitted by all those who are acquainted with the two Reports, and by all who know the history of this question, that there has been a great deal of laxity—to say the least of it—in the course taken by the French Government in presenting these claims to Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that the original claims, as signed in Paris, were prepared on the authority of the missionaries themselves, and, Sir, I will ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give us

    563
    any information on the subject. Will he tell us whether one of these claims was for the destruction of a mission station at Chagwe, which never existed? Sir, our case at the time when we opposed payment to the Company, upon the very ground that some such claim as this might be made, involved another statement, Captain Lugard reported to the Company—and it is printed in "Africa, 2nd, 1893"—that "the large amount of ivory captured by us will largely indemnify the Company's expenses." In reference to these facts, we tried to induce the House to take the view that, if any claim were to arise, it was the Company and not the Government that should pay the account. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland, who was then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, thought that, for the sake of peace and of our good relations with France, and in connection with a general settlement with France, some compensation might possibly be paid by the Government. The right hon. Baronet's words were—
    "Without admitting any liability on the merits, the Government might be willing to pay something as part of a general settlement."
    The right hon. Baronet was repeatedly asked questions in regard to this matter, and always used the same expression that, "without admitting any liability on the merits," this matter might be dealt with "as part of a general settlement" of what he called "outstanding questions with France," which were being discussed at Paris. Our case is that the words "subsequent investigation" were used in this House at that time. Sir, there has been subsequent investigation. A Report has been made on the subject, and that Report has appeared in a foreign newspaper, but has never been presented to this House. We have not, therefore, before us the results of that subsequent investigation. With regard to the promise of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on June 13th, 1895, that this matter was to be dealt with as part
    564
    of a general settlement, we have had no general settlement of "outstanding questions" with France. There are great outstanding questions with France. There is the question of Bahr-el-Ghazal, and there is the question of the Niger. But there are other outstanding questions, and questions that ought to be outstanding, which concern claims that ought to be made by us on France. The House is familiar with the action of the French in Madagascar. When the French entered the capital of Madagascar, their military occupied by force the property of the Protestant Missions, turned the people out, and put French soldiers in, and interfered with the Protestant missionaries. There is also the case of Waima, where, on January 5th, 1894, Captain Lendy, Inspector-General of Police at Sierra Leone, Lieutenant Liston, of the West India Regiment, Lieutenant Wroughton, West India Regiment, one sergeant-major, and six others were killed, and another sergeant-major and 17 men wounded by the new French repeating rifle in the hands of a French force, on territory which was said to be in dispute, but which has now been proved, without any dispute, to be British territory. And, so far as I know, no apology has ever been asked from or made by the French, and no compensation ever given to the widows and children of the men killed. If, for the sake of peace, or as part of a general settlement with France, we are to go beyond any report to this House, and without any further reports or any evidence of the subsequent investigations having taken place, we ought, at the same time, to make a demand for compensation. I have some reason to think that it is possible that some of this money has been paid already. If that is so, the House has been robbed and defeated of its right to properly and freely discuss this question. But whether that is so or not, whether it is the case that some of this money has been paid, at all events it has been promised, and promised without any evidence being placed before the House, such as that which, it seems to me, is imperatively necessary. Sir, I move—
    "That Item E (Compensation Claims) be omitted from the proposed Vote."
    *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I think this is one of the most extraordinary proposals ever submitted to the House of Commons. In "Africa, No. 4, 1892," we find that, on August 13th, 1891, Captain Lugard reports, with regard to the their of Mwanga, at the French Mission—
    "If his ideas are narrowed into the wishes and aims of Jesuit teachers, it is probable he may be no better than Mwanga, and probably a fanatical Catholic to boot, whose party feeling would give great trouble in the future."
    Sir, I do not wish to attack the British Roman Catholics, but I wish to read an extract, which will show that the rebellion was due to the instigation of the French Roman Catholic priests. With regard to their action in 1892, there is a report dated Zanzibar, July 14th, 1892, in which the following passage occurs—
    "It was with the Catholics that all the disturbances originated, and that King Mwanga was disposed to be friendly towards the English, but that the French bishop incited him and the whole of the Catholic party against them.… The greatest hospitality and kindness were shown to the French priests, who were protected by the English at Kampalla."
    Captain Lugard wrote to Mr. Berkeley, from Kampalla, the 11th February, 1892—
    "On the 12th January, the French bishop, who had gone to meet a party of newly-arrived priests, reached Mengo … There had been hitherto every prospect of continued peace, but now difficulties and quarrels began to spring up daily between the two parties, and as far as I could judge, the trouble in every instance arose from aggressions on the part of the Catholics."
    Again—
    "The Bishop had used all his influence to prevent the King's return. He had promised me he would do all in his power to bring him back."
    And then again—
    "The French priests have been joined by the King of Koki, with 700 more guns."
    566
    On July 27th, 1892, Mr. Portal wrote, as follows, to the Marquess of Salisbury—
    "It is reported that the French Bishop is urging the Roman Catholics to go on with the war, but the position of the Protestants in Uganda is now absolutely secure."
    Sir, it an extraordinary thing that the British House of Commons should be asked to compensate parties, whoever they may be, for damage alleged to have been sustained by them, when the damage sustained was in consequence of their action in fomenting a disturbance and creating war. And, Sir, it is reported by Captain Lugard, in his most interesting book on the "Rise of our East African Empire," Vol. II., page 66, that—
    "French-made arms had been imported into the country.… These (in Uganda) must have been brought by the Fathers.… The Roman Catholics had been taught to desire French supremacy."
    Every consideration was apparently shown to them by Captain Lugard, even to this extent—
    "I gave them the little drop of whisky we had" (p. 356).
    "By the priests' account all the nine Fathers in Uganda were murdered, and I had myself cut the rings from their fingers" (p. 372).
    There was no doubt the reverend gentlemen were protected by Captain Lugard, and whenever there was any possibility they were carefully guarded; but Captain Lugard goes on to tell, in page 374, about the importation of armaments—
    "Hidden in the loads of cloth were 50 Chassepot rifles on the way to Uganda, smuggled by the French Fathers."
    Then Captain Lugard shows that, while expressing "earnest wishes for peace," they were discussing our "defeat and annihilation." And, Sir, I trust the Government, in their desire to conciliate the French Jesuits, and to do a courteous thing to the great French nation, will not sacrifice all fair principles by giving compensation for injuries they never inflicted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has spoken about Madagascar. I should also

    567
    like to ask the Committee to give their consideration to the manner in which British trade has been abandoned there. We have heard of the losses supposed to have been sustained by French priests in Uganda, but what are we to say with regard to this communication in the Blue Book on Madagascar, which was recently published?—
    "Mr. Edmonds, of the London Missionary Society, returned not long ago to his mission-house at Iriafahy, with his family, intending to continue his work, which had been interrupted owing to the rebellion. He was compelled to return to the capital, as the military commander is stated to have forbidden the people at Iriafahy to sell him anything, or to visit him, even after the death of one of his children, which occurred a few days after his arrival. Mr. Kingzert and Miss Pearse were at Ankerima Diniga on the 11th January, when the Governor, knowing that Miss Pearse had some knowledge of medicine, came to the house in which she was lodging, and brought one of his children, who was sick, to ask her advice. The officer in charge of the post heard of this, and at once held a meeting, stating that, if any Malagasy visited the English when staying there, they would be fined. Mr. Kingzest went to the office to explain the nature of the visit, but he would not listen, and told him that were it not for the fact that he had a lady with him, he would be ordered out of the town at once."
    I am not often in accord with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, but if we are to have such a Motion as this brought before the House I think we ought to have the fullest information concerning the imaginary or real grounds on which compensation is asked; and I am almost inclined to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who so ably represents the Foreign Office in this House, and to whom it is always a pleasure to listen, to withdraw this Vote from the further consideration of the Committee.
    *MR. M. DAVITT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War may not be influenced by the arguments addressed to him, or the strong remarks made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. We all recognise the thorough honesty of conviction which distinguishes the Member for Belfast when he speaks in this House, but I think
    568
    he cannot expect us to look upon him as an impartial witness when a French or Irish priest is concerned. I take it, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government, after receiving Major Macdonald's Report, have come to the conclusion that this sum of money is justly due to these missionary priests, and I trust that because it is due to the missionary priests the Committee will not follow the advice of the Member for the Forest of Dean and refuse this compensation. I think it would be a most ungracious thing if we did, just simply because they are missionary priests of other nationalities. I venture to say that, if a claim like this came before the French nation for similar injury in any part of the world, the French Chamber would deal with it as I hope this Committee will deal with this claim.
    *MR. CURZON: In responding to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I do not think I must allow myself to be influenced in one direction or the other by the question of religious feeling. I must discuss the matter simply on its merits. The whole case of the right hon. Baronet is invalidated by facts of which he is unaware. The payment of this sum of £10,000 to the French missionaries in Uganda is an obligation of good faith—a moral obligation which we have inherited from the late Government. They were prepared to concede this claim quite independently of any settlement relating to other matters, and when they left office they had agreed to do so. Any subsequent Government must be bound by their admissions and actions in this matter. The facts are well known. The original conflict took place in 1892 between sections of the population in tant sections of the population in Uganda. In this conflict losses were inflicted upon the French Roman Catholic priests. They said that they were caused by the action of the officers of the British East Africa Company. On the other hand, Captain Lugard denied in toto the responsibility of the Company and disputed the losses. The French Government, however, at once put in a claim for compensation, asking for £40,000. As far back as November, 1892—that is to say, towards the close of the same year—Lord Rosebery

    569
    wrote to Lord Dufferin a dispatch, in which he made this admission—
    "If, after full investigation, a state of facts is revealed which gives rise, according to a just interpretation of the law of nations, to a liability on the part of the British Government to make compensation for material losses sustained by French subjects during the recent conflict in Uganda the British Government"—
    not the Company—
    "the British Government would not be backward in discharging its obligations in that respect."
    Now, Sir, it, will be seen from this dispatch that that was a contingent promise on the part of the late Government to compensate on certain conditions. Then came the episode to which the right hon. Baronet alluded. Major Macdonald, who had been engaged in making surveys for the Uganda Railway on the spot, was instructed by the Government to report upon the causes of the war, and upon the comities of the officials of the British East Africa Company. His Report was not received until the middle of 1893. As the right hon. Baronet says, that Report has not been laid on the Table, but it is because there would be no advantage in doing so. He reported that both parties had been responsible for the conflict, but he said nothing about losses or damages. I now come to the crucial stage, to which I invite the attention of the Committee. It was after the receipt and due examination of Major Macdonald's Report that Lord Rosebery in March, 1894, represented to the French Government that there had been a conflict of evidence, that the further elucidation of this conflict would necessitate a very long delay, and that as his Government were desirous of showing their friendship to France and of removing any cause of complaint, they themselves proposed an immediate and direct solution—namely, that, while not admitting any legal responsibility, they were ready, as an act of international comity, to indemnify the French Roman Catholic missionaries for loss of property. And,
    570
    Sir, on April 12th, 1894, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Grey), in answering a question in this House, used these words—
    "The question of compensation has not yet been settled, but the Government desire that the claim shall be dealt with in a generous spirit, and it is in that spirit that it is being discussed with the French Government.
    Now, Sir, that decision of the late Government was the governing decision and turning-point of the whole of this case. Lord Rosebery denied any legal responsibility in this matter, but he admitted the moral obligation. I submit, Sir, that, after the interpretation of that obligation by the hon. Baronet, it is not possible for any Government to disregard the continuity of policy or the continuity of moral obligation. Even then the matter was not settled. The principle of compensation had been admitted by Lord Rosebery, and defended in this House by the hon. Baronet; but an interval of haggling took place, in which each party did its best to make the best bargain for its own client. Then, if was in August, 1894, that the negotiations, to which the right hon. Baronet; alluded, began in Paris, and which it was hoped would result in a settlement of all the questions between France and ourselves in Eastern and Western Africa. Well, Sir, the question of compensation to the missionaries in Uganda not having been settled, a sum not having been definitely fixed, it was naturally included among the points to be arranged, and at the outset of the negotiations Lord Kimberley stated that he was prepared to give £10,000 compensation. As is now known the negotiations broke down; at any rate, nothing came of them.
    *MR. JOHNSON: May I ask who suggested the sum of £10,000?
    *MR. CURZON: The sum of £10,000 was, I believe, suggested by the French Ambassador in conversation with Lord Kimberley, and I think the first time it was mentioned as a definite offer on the part of the Government, was at the commencement of the negotiations in Paris. When the negotiations broke down in Paris for the settlement of the wider

    571
    issue, it is quite clear that matters reverted to their original position, and that that was so is also clear from the Debate to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, which took place in this House in June, 1895. In the course of that Debate, a speech was made by the hon. Baronet opposite, I do not know whether the report of it is accurate or not, but one sentence is, I think, absolutely clear, and that is the sentence in which the hon. Baronet said:
    "The Government made an offer to the French Government simply as an act of goodwill and in deference to the views which had been put forward by them."
    That is a statement absolutely unmistakable, in complete conformity with the assurances that had been given before, both by Lord Rosebery and by Lord Kimberley, and bears, I think, only the interpretation which I have put upon it. Such was the state of affairs when the present Government came into office. We found not merely had a moral obligation been admitted by our predecessors, but that the actual sum to be given in discharge of that moral obligation had been assessed and fixed by them, and we held that we were bound thereby. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says. What is the quid pro quo we have got for this? Sir, is not that a shabby view to take of such a transaction? We admit a moral obligation, but when we come to discharge it we are to make the most out of it that we possibly can! It has been said, why should you make this concession to the French Government or the French nation. Sir, it is not a concession to the French Government or the French nation. If it had been, I could quite understand that we might try to get something out of them in return, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a concession to French missionaries, who are subjects of our own, living under our Protectorate, and whose opinions we are specially bound to consider.
    *MR. JOHNSTON: They are always stirring up rebellion against the British Government.
    *MR. CURZON: I hope that that is not the case. It would not be likely that Lord Kimberley would have agreed to pay this compensation if that had been the case.
    *MR. JOHNSTON: I was referring solely to the French priests, who, from what is stated in the Blue Book, were certainly the real aggressors.
    *MR. CURZON: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I will not pursue it. I hope I have shown that this was not really a matter that we could look at from the sordid point of view of extracting something in return. We have paid the money because the late Government undertook to pay it, independent of any settlement of other questions, and because we accepted that view, and believed that it was desirable to remove a long standing sore from people under our Protectorate.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There are one or two remarks I should like to make upon the right hon. Gentleman's speech, though, in principle, I do not propose to differ from this Vote, and on the substantial points he has made I am certainly in agreement as to the accuracy of the history he has given of the question. First of all I would say that, alluding to Major Macdonald's Report, the right hon. Baronet gave the impression that it had no bearing upon this question of the claims made by the French Government on behalf of the French missionaries. I have not a copy here of that Report, but, according to my recollection of it, though it may have not dealt directly with that claim, its finding as to facts in which the right hon. Gentleman said the blame was distributed all round, did have a considerable bearing upon the way in which we were to meet the claim put forward by the French Government. [MR. CURZON: "Hear, hear!"] That is certainly my recollection of the Report. Still, speaking from recollection of that

    573
    Report, I, at any rate, am certainly unable to accept that Report as conclusive as regards the question of liability, but I admit it did raise questions of doubt. My own opinion was, as I think I stated the last time I spoke in the House upon this subject, that the matter really reduced itself to a fine point—whether, when the disturbances were taking place, Captain Lugard could or could not have put a guard over the property of the French missionaries and prevented it from destruction. The position of Captain Lugard at the time was, I think, a critical position. My view, certainly, was that, probably Captain Lugard had all he could do to maintain his own position, and that to raise the point, whether, when he was so hard pressed, he could or could not have placed a guard over the property of the French Mission at the time of the crisis, and in the very middle of the crisis, was raising a very fine point. But that point was left open to doubt by Major Macdonald's Report, and being laid open to doubt, it is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that the late Government did promise the French Government, in principle, that they would concede the claim. Then the question arose as to the amount, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was some difference of opinion. The actual sum claimed, seemed to us to be greatly in excess of the damage which had been proved to be done, and we were not prepared to concede the full claim. It was conceded in principle, I admit, and the Government following us were, no doubt, bound to concede it in principle, but the question arose as to what the actual amount was to be. My recollection is that the actual amount of £10,000 was not conceded until the general negotiations were opened, and that, if those general negotiations were admitted, the claim on behalf of the French Mission Station was to be allowed at the amount of £10,000. Now I think it is really taking too fine a point to raise the question whether this amount is the exact amount which should be given or not. I quite admit that the
    574
    claim was conceded in principle, and, when £10,000 is the sum actually named as part of the general negotiations, it is taking too tine a point to raise the question whether £10,000 is not £2,000 in excess of what the claim should be allowed at. But, sir, at the time when we named the sum of £10,000, and I think, also, at the time when we conceded this claim in principle, we did really hope that there was some clearing on general questions, including other difficulties in Africa. But though I regard this as I think anybody ought to regard it, as something which is really in the nature of (to use a term we have seen rather frequently of late) a "graceful concession," we did feel, and I feel still, that, when graceful concessions are made, they ought to be something more than graceful, they ought also to be mutual. I regret very much that, after we had gone so far as to yield this point as the first point—not the most important, but, the first point—in general negotiations, those general negotiations should not have led to any further result. But now at the time we have arrived at, when there are many more important questions in dispute, and, admitting to the full that the late Government pledged themselves in principle, and, admitting also that I should not raise any point as to the actual amount, and, admitting also that we on this Bench may be pledged to support this Vote, I would appeal to hon. Members who may not regard themselves as so pledged, and ask them whether it is not rather too important that this is entirely different from anything we have been discussing here to-night. It is not a question connected with the internal administration of Uganda, but it is a question between the British and the French Governments. It is true that it is a claim on behalf of the French missionaries, and that the money would have gone to them, but the money was pressed for by the French Government. It was taken up by them as a question in which they were extremely interested. Now, Sir, considering the condition of other controversies, I think we ought to take a large view of such a point as this. I am most anxious that, on some other

    575
    things, the British Government should show that there are points about which they cannot give way, but I am also anxious that we should show, and that the whole Committee should show, that, whatever firmness we wish to be displayed on other things, that firmness does not arise from any want of neighbourly feeling towards France. I think, after all that has passed, it would be churlish to refuse this Vote, even on the part of hon. Members who may regard themselves as being perfectly free with regard to it, and not in any way compromised by anything that was done by the previous Government. This Vote does give us an opportunity of showing a neighbourly feeling in response to the keenly expressed interest of the French Government in the matter, and I think that, at any rate, we ought not to grudge the concession.
    MR. MCKENNA: After what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by the hon. Baronet opposite, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a Division, but I should like, before We part with the Vote, to refer to one or two points. The hon. Baronet opposite, said that there was an admitted liability on the part of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I would like to point out that any such unqualified admission of liability constitutes a grave charge of misconduct against Colonel Lugard. The original form in which this matter was brought forward makes it impossible to admit our liability, except we admit very grave misconduct on the part of Colonel Lugard. M. Waddington, writing to Lord Salisbury, uses these words—
    "I cannot conceal from your Lordship that the very gravest accusations are made in this matter by Captain Lugard."
    That is very serious language to use of a man in whom I feel sure every member of this Committee places the highest confidence. The hon. Baronet opposite expressed the hope that we should not take a
    576
    sordid view of this question. We shall all be agreed about that, and I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean urged any sordid View. What we desire is that the Government should take purely and simply a mutual view of what are the relations between the French Government and our own, and regard this matter as connected with the general settlement of all outtanding claims between the two sides. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the question raised by my right hon. Friend as to the action of the French in attacking the soldiers of our West Indian Regiment at Waima. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we had then as grave a case against the French Government as it is possible to conceive, but no attention whatever seems to have been paid to our claims. I will trouble the House with only one other observation, and that is about the neglect to supply the House with Major Macdonald's Report. That Report was originally required by Lord Rosebery as a condition precedent to any settlement of the question. I have been able to discover in connection with this matter only one reference to that Report, and from that it appears that the Report was in the hands of the Foreign Office in the year 1893. It was a Report sent by Major Macdonald and a European gentleman, who, it appears, was a German newspaper correspondent. This latter gentleman sent the whole Report to his paper, and it has actually appeared in a Berlin newspaper. Yet the Report has never been laid before the House, and this Committee is left entirely without the materials on which to form an accurate judgment. I submit that, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should give some explanation as to the reasons which have induced the Foreign Office to withhold the publication of this Report.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, because, after the statements of the right hon. Gentleman

    577
    the Under Secretary of State and the hon. Baronet opposite, I think it is clear that we are morally bound to pay this sum. I only rise to express the hope that, in regard to claims made by the undoubtedly loyal Protestant missionaries, the same treatment may be extended to them, and that perfect equality may be shown in dealing with Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries.
    *SIR C. DILKE: I feel, Sir, that I have no alternative but to withdraw the Amendment, after the statements that have been made on this, as well as on the other, side of the House. But I cannot help saying that I still have the strongest feeling of dissatisfaction at the non-publication of Major Macdonald's Report. With regard to the case I referred to of the attack on the West Indian Regiment at Waima, I understand I should not be in order in raising it formally on this Vote; I will take another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.
    Motion by leave withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    3. £1,533, Treasury Chest Fund.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,533 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, to make good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various Treasury Chests abroad in the year 1896–97."
    DR. G. B. CLARK: On this Vote, I would like to ask why the loss in connection with the raising of funds at Ceylon, Mauritius, and Nora Scotia should be borne by the Imperial Parliament instead of by the Indian Parliament; why is this put in a Supplementary Estimate at all; and why is the amount so much less than it was last year?
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): This is always brought in as an original Estimate tit the end of the year. With regard to the particular losses in connection with the raising of funds at Ceylon, Mauritius, and Nova Scotia, the hon. Member must know that certain troops have to be kept in those Colonies, and that provision for other Imperial services has to be made there.
    DR. CLARK: How is it that there is such a great reduction this year?
    *MR. HANBURY: That is simply due to the fact that the loss has not been so great this year as it was before.
    MR. CALDWELL: Of course, we all know that that is so. It is preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is self-evident. But the point is that the sum asked this year is £1,533, against £16,304 in the previous year; and what we want to know is why there is such a considerable reduction this year.
    *MR. HANBURY: I have really given the only explanation possible. The loss on transactions connected with the Treasury Chest is less this year than it was before, owing to the fact that the calculation in regard to the exchange rates of the rupee and the dollar was nearer the mark this year than it was in the preceding year.
    MR. CALDWELL: Then, are we to understand that the whole thing is due to the depreciation of the rupee or the appreciation of the dollar?
    *MR. HANBURY: Perhaps I may explain it in this way. This Vote deals with the loss during the year 1896–97. In February of each year, what is called a fixed rate between sterling and the rupee is agreed upon between the Indian and the Imperial Governments. In some years the rate agreed upon is either above or below the actual rate. The rate is fixed for the whole year. If the rupee rises

    579
    in exchange it is possible we should lose; if it falls the Treasury Chest gains.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VI.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £46,424, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, to make good (1) the sum by which the Interest accrued in the year ended 20th November, 1897, from Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners, on account of '"The Fund for the Banks of Savings,"" and "The Fund for Friendly Societies" was insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to pay and Credit to Trustees of Savings Banks and to Friendly Societies; (2) the sum by which the Interest accrued in the years ended 31st December, 1896, and 31st December, 1897, from Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of "The Post Office Savings Bank Fund," was insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to pay and credit to depositors, and the Expenses incurred during those years in the execution of the Acts relating thereto."
    DR. CLARK: I think we should have some pledge from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that legislation will be introduced to stop this leakage. The Friendly Societies and the Trustee Savings Bank and the Post Office Savings Bank ought to be run on commercial lines, and we ought not to be called upon to vote every year these subsidies. This has been going on for several years, but nothing has been done, although the Government before the last pledged themselves to deal with the matter. These deficiencies are becoming more and more every year. In addition to what we have already given, there is £46,000 now to be found. That means that the value of money is becoming less and less every year, and yet we are going on paying a rate of interest which was fixed many years ago when the value of money was greater. I do not intend to take a Division against the Vote, but when we come to this item in the Estimates, unless some assurance is given by the Government, I shall certainly take a Division upon it.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: The whole subject is one of very great complication. The hon. Member has told us that this deficiency is increasing yearly, but, after all, it is not a matter of the amount of money; it is a matter of the policy which the Vote involves. It seems to me that the time has come when the Government should make some distinct statement as to their policy. The State holds now something like 160 or 170 millions sterling of consols. At the present rate of consols, we cannot pay the interest, let alone the cost of carrying on these institutions. I think the time has come when it is to the public advantage that either a regular Vote should be taken to decrease the interest, or that we should distinctly state that some effort, at any rate, should be made to prevent this loss. I think myself it is a matter of very great importance. It is, no doubt, not a very popular subject to handle, but there is one advantage in having a Government with a large majority—that they can do that which is right, apart from any consideration as to whether it is popular or not. The longer this is put off the more serious the difficulty will become. Perhaps something might be done by providing that depositors over a certain amount, or, at any rate new depositors should not receive the large interest that is now given. It was certainly not intended that these savings banks should make a loss to the State, and that this large taxation should be necessary to make good that loss. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to promise to introduce some legislation to deal with the matter.
    *MR. T. LOUGH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not promise anything in the direction indicated by the hon. Member who has just sat down without the fullest consideration. The largest item in this Vote is £23,000 for the Trustee Savings Banks. That stands on an entirely different footing from the other items. It is more than half the whole Vote. It is a sum paid out of consideration for the difficulties in which these Trustee Savings Banks

    581
    stand, owing to the great competition of that national institution—the Post Office Savings Bank. As to the deficiency in connection with the Post Office Savings Banks, when one thinks for a moment of the vast sums winch are invested in the Post Office Savings Bank, 130 or 140 millions, and when we remember that there are many millions of depositors in these Savings Banks, this loss of £11,700 is a mere bagatelle. I should like to ask whether, as a matter of fact, there has not been for many years past a profit? Whether there is or not, it is, at any rate, very likely there will be a profit in the future. The loss has probably been caused by reason of the buying of Consols. I do not see why we should persist in buying Consols. It tends to put up the price, and other securities might be bought. I only throw out this hint, but at any rate some saving ought to be possible in the administration of this great Bank. There may be many ways of meeting this really trivial loss of £11,000 a year, and I would earnestly appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to make any change which would prejudice an institution which is a great benefit to a vast number of people.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,): I must say that I sympathise with my hon. friend sitting below me when he protests that there ought not to be a charge upon the general taxpayers of the country in order to pay higher interest to depositors in savings banks than their money legitimately earns. But, Sir, after all, we must apply every kind of principle with some regard to the actual circumstances of the case. Now what are the circumstances of this case? For many years past, up to last year, the accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank have shown a considerable surplus income. Last year, for the first time, there was a deficit—a small deficit. This year the deficit has slightly increased, but what is it when compared
    582
    with the total amount of interest paid? Why, Sir, the total amount of the interest paid by the Post Office Savings Bank to depositors in the year 1896 amounted to £2,458,000. Surely my hon. Friend will not think that a deficit of some £9,000 or £10,000 in 1897 is very important in comparison with such a sum. There is, of course, very considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter, owing to the natural desire which, I am sure, is entertained by every hon. Member, to encourage savings banks. We are approaching the time when the interest on the National Debt will be reduced from 2¾ per cent. to 2½ per cent. That will be the proper time to reduce the rate of interest paid to the Trustee Savings Banks from 2¾ to 2½ per cent., and the Post Office Savings Bank would then naturally follow with a similar reduction of ¼ per cent. I confess I have been agreeably surprised by the small amount of deficit incurred in this last year. That has been due to several circumstances. There has been a decrease in fresh deposits in savings banks as compared with the previous year of something like two millions, a decrease probably due in some measure to the high Bank rate. But though there has been a deficit in income, there was, on December 31st, 1896, a surplus of no less than £11,900,000 on the capital account of the Post Office Savings Bank.
    DR. CLARK: Is that at the present price of Consols?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: At their price on that day. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am watching this matter very closely, and as soon as I think the time has arrived when a greater burden is being imposed on the taxpayers than they ought to be called upon to bear, I shall feel it my duty to take action.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to ask when there was any surplus in the Trustee Savings Bank Account or the

    583
    Friendly Societies Account? Up to last year there were only two items in this Vote, headings A and B. Now we have headings A, B, and C. Since I have been in the House we have had a deficit every year, and I think nearly every year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a similar statement to that just made by the right hon. Gentleman, and promised to deal with the matter, but nothing has been done. In addition to the two burdens we have had for a long time in connection with the Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies, we are now to meet a third. I should like to ask when there was a surplus on the Trustee Savings Banks, and how much we have paid during the last ten or twelve years to make up this deficiency?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: During the last 22 years there have been deficits of varying amount in 16 years, and surpluses in 6 years. I think 1891 was the last year in which there was a surplus. But I would point out that in the year 1895 the deficit was £22,891, so that the deficit this year shows only a small increase.
    MR. CALDWELL: There is one matter which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind. He will no doubt be aware that in the Post Office Accounts a very considerable sum—I think about £60,000 a year—is debited to the Post Office Savings Bank Department in respect of postage. I would, therefore, point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that obviously he should not look to make a separate profit out of the Post Office Savings Bank in a matter of this kind, when we know that the Department already furnishes a certain proportion of the profit which is handed in to the Exchequer every year towards the general revenue of the country. I mention this not merely because this £60,000 a year is an important sum in itself, but there are many other matters
    584
    of expenditure in regard to which probably careful inquiry would show that rather more is debited to the Post Office Savings Bank Department than there should be, especially when we are dealing with a matter in which the greatest liberality should be shown by the State. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably find on inquiry that, after all, if these banks do not make a profit, they do not make any loss. Then, the right hon. Gentleman has given us the figures as to interest, and so on, in relation to the Post Office Savings Bank; I should like to ask him whether he can give us the same statistics in relation to the Trustee Savings Banks? The comparison of the two sets of figures would be interesting.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to say I have not those figures with me.
    *MR. LOUGH: As the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to the deficit in connection with the Trustee Savings Banks, I would be obliged if he would give us an idea of the amount of surplus in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank, because I protest against the one being considered separately from the other. The surplus in the one case should be reckoned against the deficit in the other.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not agree with the view of the hon. Member. I can only tell him that the surplus was considerable; I cannot at present give him the figures.
    DR. TANNER: I think the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite are far from satisfactory. One of the first and the best of these Trustee Savings Banks was that established in the city of Cork by a Mr. Tiray. If you have these great deficits and deficiencies, and if you also find that, unfortunately, in Ireland things are going from bad to worse, we

    585
    have a right to call upon the Treasury Authorities to show us that they are doing their best in dealing with the particular points we are called upon to investigate. Now, to cut a long matter short, this deficit amounts to the extraordinary sum of £23,197, and in order to bring the matter to a determination, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000. In all these financial affairs we must try to do our best; we cannot do more. [Interruption.] The hon. Members who take exception to my remarks, perhaps, do not care to know anything about these details; but, speaking as one who knows something about one of the best of these Savings Banks—that is, the one at Cork, established by Mr. Tiray, whose statue is placed opposite the Bank as an object of admiration—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the subject-matter of the Vote.
    DR. TANNER: I have moved a reduction of the Vote, and I am entitled to support my proposition. I say that it is iniquitous that this deficiency—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move—
    "That the Question be now put:"—
    Question put.
    Dr. TANNERwas appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
    Question put accordingly—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £46,424, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will tome in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, to make good (1) the sum by which the Interest accrued in the year ended 20th November, 1897, from Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners, on account of 'The Fund for the Banks of Savings,' and 'The Fund for Friendly Societies,' was insufficient
    586
    to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to pay and credit, to Trustees of Savings Banks and to Friendly Societies; (2) the sum by which the Interest accrued in the years ended 31st December, 1896, and 31st December, 1897, from securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of 'The Post Office Savings Bank Fund,' was insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to pay and credit to Depositors, and the expenses incurred during those years in the execution of the Acts relating thereto."
    Resolution to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,810, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for Expenditure in connection with certain Public Works, and for improved Communications, and other purposes, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including a Grant in Aid:"—
    MR. CALDWELL: This Vote raises two questions of considerable importance: first, with regard to the provision of steamers on the west coast of Scotland; and, secondly, with regard to a sum expended in connection with a road from Stornoway to Carloway, in the Island of Lewis. So far as the Vote is concerned, there is a principle involved here—that the money we are voting is not to go to the Imperial Treasury, but it is to be handed over to a Scottish Board. There is an unexpended balance of £1,485, which, instead of going back to Imperial funds, is to be re-voted to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board. The original sum of £15,000 was voted for the construction of this road as suitable, not merely as a road, but for the purposes of a tram. I should like to ash how much money has been expended on this Vote—
    It being midnight, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee also report progress; to sit again this day.

    IRELAND—DISTURBANCE AT WESTPORT.
    MR. DAVITT: On the Motion for Adjournment, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received any information in the course of the day, in reference to an attack made upon some people in the court-house at Westport by the police. I have received a telegram, which I should like to read to the House—
    "Four leaders sentenced four months, in refusing bail; people cheered as they left Court; police charged with bâtons; County Inspector Milling first struck people; one person seriously injured."
    I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to contradict this serious statement, because he knows that in this country, in the case of any trial arousing popular excitement, it is customary for people to cheer at the result, and the only consequence is a reproof from the Judge. I trust we may receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there is some mistake in this telegram; otherwise we shall have to take most serious notice of a police outrage upon people for cheering inside a court-house upon such an occasion.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have very little information to give the hon. Member with regard to this occurrence. As far as I can gather, it seems to have taken place not, as the hon. Member says, inside the courthouse, but outside. I had better read to the House the telegram I have received—
    "On removal of prisoners, large, excited crowd assembled; prisoners got off quietly, but shortly after mob became disorderly; County Inspector had to order bâton charge, since which perfectly quiet."
    I shall no doubt receive a more detailed account later to-day; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his question.
    *MR. LOUGH: I think it is a very serious matter that a demonstration of this kind, on the part of the people, should provoke such a retort on the part of the police, seeing, especially, the famine and suffering at present existing in this part of Ireland. I will not yield to anyone in my desire to see law and order respected in every part of the kingdom, but I think the Government might, considering the great suffering, of which this spot is the centre, take steps to see that these explosions of temper on the part of the police should not take place. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who is also in his place at this moment, whether the Government might not ensure that the law may be tempered with as much kindness as possible.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If the hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I think that the law should always be tempered with kindness, but the hon. Member will notice that he is mixing up two things. While if is our duty, as far as we can, to mitigate suffering, it is also our duty to preserve law and order, and I do not think that one duty clashes with the other in the least.
    DR. TANNER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can bring himself to apply the term "mob" to the people, who were merely cheering and encouraging leaders, who they thought had been unjustly sentenced?
    MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be well to give the police instructions either to read the Riot Act, or give some other notice, before they resort to a bâton charge.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police always give notice, if they can do so, before taking such steps.
    The House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad (Tramway Extension) Bill [H.L.].—Presented; read first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill [H.L.]: Sheringham and Beeston Protection Bill [H.L.].—Read a second time.
Bail Bill [H.L.].—Amendment reported; to be read a third time.
Public Record Office Bill [H.L.]—Read a third time, passed and sent to Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  UGANDA.
  *LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I need not say how deeply I regret the cause which prevents my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from being in his place to-day, but as I am informed that the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council is ready to answer the Questions which I have put on the Paper, I shall proceed to ask them. The time has not arrived at which a full discussion upon the events which have recently occurred in the Uganda Protectorate can be undertaken with advantage. Operations are still going on there of a warlike nature. The information which has reached us is
  434
  scanty and imperfect, and we are not in a position rightly to apportion praise or blame, if praise or blame be deserved. I therefore shall not enter into any discussion of the general state of things in Uganda, and I think it is a matter for regret that a Debate upon that subject should be taking place in the other House of Parliament at this time, but as that is, owing to circumstances, now inevitable, I think it is highly desirable that we should know whether the Government is in possession of any information beyond that which is contained in the despatches published in the Parliamentary paper largely circulated. The points which I have enumerated in my Questions are points most essential to attaining any real grasp of the subject at issue—possibly the Government may have the information I ask for. If so, I hope they will not withhold it from us; but it is very possible that they may have no information beyond that contained in the despatches which have been published. In that case, I hope they will admit that there is a strong reason for inquiry into the points which I have mentioned, and, with regard to which they say they have no information. Now, the first Question which I propose to put is—
  "Whether, during the time that the Soudanese mutineers remained at the Eldoma Ravine Station, any attempt was made to block their road to Uganda, or to secure the arrival there of Major Macdonald's force before that of the mutineers."
  This seems so obvious a precaution that one can hardly suppose it can possibly have been neglected. It may not have been neglected. I hope it was not; but there is nothing in the Parliamentary paper to show that any such precaution wits taken. On the contrary, what one would judge from the Parliamentary paper is rather to the effect that no such precaution was taken. My second Question is—
  "Whether, prior to the departure of the mutineers from the Ravine Station, any warning as to the gravity of the situation was given to the authorities at Kampala or Entibbi."
  There, again, the despatches printed in the Parliamentary paper are absolutely silent. The earliest intimation of any

  435
  warning being given from Major Macdonald's force to the authorities at Kampala is a letter, dated the 27th of September, a letter which, by the way, is not printed among the papers in the Blue Book. That was several days after the gravity of the situation was apparent. If we are to look at the Blue Book only, we should say that no such warning was given. Then I want to know—
  "Whether any explanation has been given of the causes which led to the march of the pursuing force from Mumias to Lubwas occupying so long a time—from the 11th to the 18th October."
  There may have been excellent reasons for that. I daresay there were; but there are none given. There are none assigned in the Blue Book, and my reason for asking is that the Waganda Force, with the missionaries who accompanied it, went over another part of the same road, which is of exactly the same character, and presenting no greater facilities of transit, and made the march of a very little shorter length in the course of 48 hours. Where so much was at stake one would have thought that every effort would have been made to reach Lubwas before the mutineers. There is no explanation whatever of the long delay. My last two Questions are—
  "Whether, on the arrival of the pursuing force before Lubwas, any, and what, efforts were made to effect the release of Major Thurston, and Mr. Wilson"; and
  "Whether, on the 18th October, or after the fight on the following day, any inducements were held out to the mutineers to release Major Thurston, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Scott."
  The Blue Book on that subject, again, is absolutely silent; no such effort is recorded. It is not stated whether any effort was made to prevent the murder of these gallant gentlemen—one of them an officer, having a record of very considerable merit. The matter is mentioned casually, just as the loss of so many baggage animals might be mentioned. It is not surprising that in these circumstances the relatives of these officers and gentlemen are deeply pained, and, I may say, highly indignant, and ready to credit all manner of wild stories that may come in private letters from Uganda. If Her Majesty's Government has any information on these points, I
  436
  hope that information wall be given to the House. If the Government has not got the information, I hope it will recognise the necessity for inquiry. There have been a series of unfortunate circumstances throughout the whole affair. In the first place, it was unfortunate that instructions were sent to attach the Soudanese force to Major Macdonald's expedition. The dispatch in which those instructions were conveyed to the authorities in Uganda is not given in the Parliamentary Papers that have been printed. It would be interesting to know whether those instructions to the Uganda Government were absolute, or whether they left a discretion with them. If they were absolute, it was, I think, unfortunate not to have taken into account the possible change of circumstances that might have occurred in a country at such a distance away, and with which the difficulties of communication are so great. If they did leave a discretion, it is most unfortunate that the Uganda authorities did not exercise that discretion, for the condition of the country, between the time when the order was given here and the time when it was received there, had completely changed. From being in a peaceable and safe condition, the country had become a prey to disturbances throughout its whole extent. Next, it was unfortunate that these particular companies of Soudanese were selected to go with Major Macdonald's force. They were the companies which, for eight months past, had been perpetually on the move. They had been doing very hard service, and had been employed against the rebels in different parts of Uganda, and their request that other companies, which had not been exposed to similarly harassing duties, should be employed instead of them seems to me to have been a most reasonable request. It is also unfortunate that they were employed along with other negro troops receiving pay just four times as much as their own. That was not calculated to sooth discontented people. It was also very unfortunate, I think, that foolish suggestions for altering their uniform and depriving them of the fez—to them the badge of Islam—should have been entertained, and created suspicion among them. It was unfortunate they were ordered to a region they had

  437
  stipulated they should not be sent to, and under a leader whom they did not trust. Most of all, it was unfortunate, that when they came to state their grievances, those grievances should not have been listened to, and that they were fired upon—a proceeding which it is evident from Sir Arthur Hardinge's dispatch he entirely diapproved and disliked. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to give some information in reply to my Question. If they are not able to do so, I shall give notice that at some future date, when the matter is settled, and when we are better able to apportion blame or praise, I shall bring the matter again before the House, with a Motion attached.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVNONSHIRE): My noble Friend, in his concluding observations, has, I think, travelled somewhat beyond the scope of the Questions which he has put upon the Paper, and has discussed, though I admit not very fully, a part of the whole Question which he began by stating he thought was at the present time premature. However that may be, I am afraid that I am unable to follow my noble Friend in any of those general observations which he has made. I must confine my reply to the terms of the Questions. He has asked whether the Government have any information in addition to that which is contained in the Papers that have been presented. In reply to that, I have only to state that all the information on the points referred to in the five Questions is contained in the dispatches, and that anything which may have been received since adds nothing to the information which the Government possesses on these points. I am unable, however, quite to agree with my noble Friend when he stated that on these five points the Papers are absolutely silent. The information which they contain may not be very full, and will, doubtless, be supplemented by more complete information when it is received; but I think that upon every one of the Questions which have been placed on the Paper, I can refer my noble Friend to certain passages in the Papers which throw some light upon them. His first Question is—
  "Whether, during the time that the Soudanese, mutineers remained at the Eldoma Ravine
  438
  Station, any attempt was made to block their road to Uganda, or to secure the arrival there of Major Macdonald's force before that of the mutineers."
  If my noble Friend will refer to page 21 of the "Papers Relating to Recent Events in the Uganda Protectorate," he will find that Mr. Jackson reports that he had informed Captain Bagnall of the state of affairs, and had instructed him to do everything in his power to prevent the Soudanese mutineers from passing towards Uganda. Continuing, he says—
  "I am, myself, hurrying forward by the old caravan road (Gaash Ngishm) accompanied by Major Macdonald's column to Mumias, where I shall be in close touch with Uganda and Nandi, and be in a position to take such steps as may be necessary."
  *LORD STANMORE: Will my noble Friend pardon me? I am perfectly aware of that passage, but it has nothing whatever to do with the point. What I was referring to was Major Macdonald's force—the large force that was at the Ravine with the mutineers. Was an attempt made by that large force to block the way?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: That every effort was made to stop the advance of the mutineers is shown by a passage on page 28, in Mr. Jackson's dispatch to Lord Salisbury. Mr. Jackson says—
  "In continuation of my dispatch of the 26th ultimo, from the Ravine Station, I regret to have to report to your Lordship that I have heard from Captain Bagnall that the arrangements I had made to confine the mutineers to the Mau district were going on satisfactorily until the 25th or 26th ultimo, when the half of No. 4 Company, under Jadin Effendi, then garrisoning the Nandi Station, rose and took possession of the fort."
  Mr. Jackson says further on—
  "In the event of my not arriving at Mumias before then, I have taken steps to prevent them crossing the Nile into Uganda, should my arrangements for preventing them from crossing the Nzoia River, in Kavirondo, now probably in flood, prove unavailing. I may add that I have also sent instructions to Mr. G. Wilson at Kampala to take the necessary steps for insuring the safety of the ladies now in Uganda, but in such a way as not to cause needless alarm. I hope to be in Kavirondo in five days from to-day."
  In reply to my noble Friend's question as to whether, prior to the departure of

  439
  the mutineers from the Ravine Station, any warning as to the gravity of the situation was given to the authorities at Kampala or Entibbi, I will ask him to refer to page 42, on which he will find a despatch from Mr. Wilson to Lord Salisbury. It is dated "Kampala, October 12th, 1897," and in it Mr. Wilson says—
  "I received to-day a communication from Mr. Jackson, of the 27th September, informing me of the details of the mutiny at the Ravine, which, to some extent, confirmed the native rumours, and, though it minimised the numbers of the mutineers, it did not allow of the relaxation of the precautions already taken."
  *LORD STANMORE: I feel it is bad manners to interrupt the noble Duke again, but I hope he will pardon me. May I observe that it is not my question he is answering? My question was whether, previous to the mutineers leaving the Ravine Station, any warning as to the gravity of the situation was given to the authorities at Kampala or Entibbi. The 27th of September was after they had left the Ravine.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: Then I understand my noble Friend's question is: Was information of the mutiny given before it took place?
  *LORD STANMORE: No, no. That is not so. I asked whether, previous to the departure of the mutineers from the Ravine Station, any warning was given as to the gravity of the situation. The noble Duke says that, after they had left, warning was sent.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: I am quoting from the dispatches. If my replies are not satisfactory to my noble Friend, I am afraid I cannot supply the deficiency. With regard to the question as to whether any explanation has been given as to the causes which led to the march of the pursuing force from Mumias to Lubwas occupying so long a time, there is a paragraph on page 32, which appears to bear on that question. The paragraph is as follows—
  "Lieut. Fowler, at Port Victoria, also took steps to defend his fort and to cut the bridges over the Sio River, but he was only able to partially carry out this step. On hearing that Lieut. Fowler was in danger, Mr. Jackson and
  440
  I (Major Macdonald) advanced to his assistance with all the men we could raise. Major Thurston had meanwhile proceeded to Lubwas to assist Mr. N. A. Wilson there. He had a garrison of about 60 Soudanese, and sent the steam-launch to Port Alice for a Maxim and some ammunition, but was hopeful that his influence over the troops would be sufficient to induce them to surrender. He, however, asked us to come on at once."
  As I understand it, the first step taken by Major Macdonald was to relieve Port Victoria, where danger was supposed to be greatest at the time. The other Questions asked by my noble Friend are—
  "Whether, on the arrival of the pursuing force before Lubwas, any, and what, efforts were made to effect the release of Major Thurston, and Mr. Wilson?"
  "Whether, on the 18th October, or after the fight on the following day, any inducements were held out to the mutineers to release Major Thurston, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Scott?"
  In answer to those Questions I refer my noble Friend to page 32 again. In Major Macdonald's despatch, dated Lubwas Hill, Usoga, October 22nd, he says—
  "On our arrival at this point, the mutineers at once sent out two companies to attack us, but when they already saw us posted in a strong position they retired. I would not allow any firing, as I hoped to secure the release of the European prisoners by negotiations. On the morning of the 19th instant the mutineers, to the number of 300, assisted by some 150 Waganda Mahommedans, attacked our camp."
  Then follows an account of the engagement which ensued, and so far as I am able to ascertain from that account, there was no opportunity of subsequently communicating with the mutineers, or of taking any steps to obtain the release of the prisoners. I do not by any means wish to assert that the information which is contained in these papers is full and complete, but in answer to my noble Friend. I have only to say that they contain all the information which is, at present, in the possession of the Government upon the matter, and that there is nothing more to be added to what they contain.
  The House adjourned at 4.55 till to-morrow at 4.15.