Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/40

 32] ENGLISH HISTOKY. [fbb.

strictly inquired into. From what could be ascertained it appeared that the pay was too small, and that the companies which had been the first to mutiny had been seriously over- worked. Mr. Brodrick, on the other hand, ascribed the causes of the mutiny to a general feeling of unrest among the natives, and to a widespread belief that an attempt at that moment to overpower all European officers would be successful. The officers on the spot believed that the country had largely settled down ; but, of course, until the remnants of the rebellious troops were finally disposed of one must expect to hear of attacks like that of which news had recently reached us. Explaining the objects of Colonel Martyr's expedition, he said that that officer was to explore and to plant posts, if possible, on the right bank of the Nile and to connect Uganda with the territory to which Lord Kitchener's troops had penetrated. It was intended that ultimately he should join hands with Lord Kitchener, occupying the territory to which by treaty we were entitled, and which connected Uganda and the sources of the Nile with the valley. It was not intended to push outposts in every direction, but to strengthen our occupation of the terri- tories which had been acquired. As to the circumstances of our occupation of Uganda, he did not believe that they con- trasted unfavourably with the circumstances of our occupation of other African regions. The debate was continued by Mr. M'Kenna (Monmouthshire, N.), Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett (Ecclesall, Sheffield), Mr. Labouchere (Northampton), and Mr. H. M. Stanley (Lambeth, N.), who regretted that greater progress had not been made with the Uganda Bailway. The amendment was negatived by 185 to 66 ; majority, 119.

Notwithstanding this expression of confidence in the Govern- ment Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire), whose industry in mastering details was unrivalled, insisted upon drawing attention to the alleged violations of the law relating to fugitive slaves in Mombasa, and the action of British officials in the matter. The Government reply was not satisfactory, for while Mr. Brodrick assured them British officials had been instructed not to take any part in the restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters, he was unable to say definitely what their action has been. Ultimately, under considerable pressure, he promised to obtain the information, and to communicate it to the House, and on this understanding the vote was allowed to be taken.

A month having elapsed and no statement having been volunteered by the Foreign Office, Mr. Bayley (Chesterfield, Derbyshire) reopened the subject by stating (March 22) that a British magistrate had handed back slaves to their masters contrary to the law. This statement, backed by the offer of documentary proof, was followed by a request from Mr. M'Kenna (Monmouthshire, N.) for a definite statement of the law as to slavery in the Zanzibar Protectorate. The ex- Solicitor-General,