§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to recent occurrences in New Guinea, Whether Her Majesty's Government consider that the concession of responsible government to a Colony still enjoying the protection of the British power and the British fleet, enables the Colonial authorities not only to govern their own Colony but also to invade and annex other countries, in the name of Her Majesty, without the sanction of the British Government, and oven to cross the seas for the purpose? The hon. Member said, he wished to explain—the Question having been somewhat abridged—that ho referred not only to recent occurrences in New Guinea, but also to some recent occurrence in this country which had been reported in The Times. There was the report of an answer given in that House yesterday in reference to New Guinea, in which the Under Secretary of State stated that, in the absence of any further information, the Government did not contemplate the repudiation of the annexation or the recall of the Governor, Secondly, there was a report in other papers, and in The Times also, and it had remained 748 uncontradicted for two days. It was the report of speech by the Under Secretary at a meeting at Northampton, in which, defending the Colonial policy of the Government, and referring to the annexation of New Guinea, he anticipated that proof would be forthcoming that that had been undertaken in self-defence—a vastly different thing from annexation or aggrandizement such as that in the case of Cyprus. As these statements had, no doubt, been telegraphed all over Australia by this time, be wished to ask the Question he had placed on the Paper—Whether the Government recognized the primâ facie power on the part of the Colonies to do these things subject to the approval of the Imperial Government?
MR. GLADSTONEI suppose my hon. Friend does not give me credit for omniscience, and unless he did give mo that credit, and gave it justly, he could hardly expect that I should answer him with respect to statements of which I have heard and know absolutely nothing.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLPerhaps I may explain. ["Order!"]
MR. GLADSTONEI will answer the Question as it appears on the Paper, and my answer is this. As we are imperfectly informed, as has been already stated in this House by my hon. Friend, it appears to me that it would be pro-mature on our part to take any step, or to give any opinion of the transaction, until we are acquainted with its nature, especially when we know that a despatch explaining it is on the way. But, of course, my hon. Friend must be aware that no act of annexation can possibly be of any validity unless it is an act of the Central and Imperial Parliament.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer just given, he would add to the Notice which stood in his name with reference to the Transvaal—
That this House also considers that it is inconsistent with the honour and interest of the British Empire at the same time to abandon its rights and responsibilities for the protection of Native races in South Africa and to assume fresh responsibilities by the continual extension of Her Majesty's dominions in other parts of the globe.