CLASS II. (Hansard, 22 August 1804)

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said, he wished to obtain some information as to the English and French Treaties with the Congo Free State. The Anglo-Congo Treaty had practically disappeared. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs in the French Assembly had, on June 7, openly declared, in a way, he believed, without precedent, that the Anglo-Congo Treaty was null and void. By Article II. of the Franco-Congo Treaty, the Congo State was driven out of its position as a buffer State between us and the French, and it was forced back some 300 miles eastward. At least 12,000 square miles of territory leased to the Congo State by this country under the Treaty of the 12th of May had been resigned by that State. So far as they knew, this great tract of country had fallen back into the position of no man's land, and was quite open to French occupation. The other day, when he tried to elicit some information as to the Western basin of the Nile, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that Her Majesty's Government were in no sense parties to the Franco-Congo Agreement, and that the territory North of Lado and in the Western watershed of the Nile basin still remained within the sphere of British influence. That was a very important statement indeed, and he hoped that the Government intended to adhere to it. He would not have said one word on this subject had it not been for the recently-issued Siam Blue Book. He recollected with what consideration the Opposition treated the Government last year in acceding to the suggestion that it was contrary to British interests that questions should be put or that information should be given as to the progress of events in Siam. And now 12 months later they read in the Blue Book a deplorable story of aggression on one side, and of weakness and surrender on the other such as they had not seen since the days of the Transvaal capitulation. The story was almost heart-rending as told in the Siam Blue Book. Every fresh advance of the French against Siam was met by retreat and surrender on our side, until the integrity of that country was destroyed, and great inroads made upon its independence. If a similar policy was to be adopted with 339 regard to the Congo, and the French forces allowed to approach the Nile watershed, tremendous injury would be done to our commercial and political interests. He, therefore, asked from the Government a clear statement of their policy. Would they insist upon retaining the western watershed of the Nile within the sphere of British influence? Did they know exactly what the French forces in Central Africa were doing or intended to do? If the Government adopted a firm attitude, well and good. He was asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, on behalf of whom he was speaking. He was speaking for a very large body of persons throughout the country who were interested in the maintenance of our political and commercial control over the Nile waterway. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, who had put that question, to appreciate Imperial or commercial views, for his opinions were purely academic, but the public realised the vast importance of this question. He was quite aware that his speeches had not been received with particular favour by Her Majesty's Government. He never expected the approbation of the present Ministry, but he had never intervened, except when the importance of the subject justified it. They must have a clearly defined boundary placed to the advance of the French forces towards the Nile. He trusted the Government would see that the Western Nile watershed was retained within the sphere of British influence, and kept clear of all foreign encroachment.

§ SIR E. GREY
said he ought, perhaps, to have reserved the latter part of his last speech for this Vote, as he meant it to be taken as a reason why he did not make a detailed statement with regard to the large matters dealt with by the hon. Member. The question the hon. Member asked was in connection with an answer he had given in that House a few days ago. That answer was given with the full authority of Her Majesty's Government. He had no alteration whatever to make. It was not a new announcement; it was founded on decisions arrived at long ago, and he had only to say that they had no intention of abandoning the legitimate claims inherited from their predecessors.

SIR R. TEMPLE
agreed that the matter discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield was of first-class Imperial importance. When these questions were raised the Minister responsible usually declared that negotiations were pending and deprecated discussion; but although that might be a good reason for reticence on his part, it was not one for silence on their part. They had listened with satisfaction to the statement that the entire watershed of the Nile was within the sphere of British influence, and he hoped they might assume that the Government were prepared to defend that against all comers. With a declaration to that effect they would be satisfied, but they must be excused for having a little scepticism on the point after the conduct of the Government in regard to Siam—conduct which had been so pathetically depicted by his hon. Friend. Of course, he did not doubt the sincerity of the Government in making the declaration. What he did doubt was their power to make it good. If, as was alleged, the Congo boundary had been pushed up to within 40 or 50 miles of the western bank of the Nile, that meant that, potentially, the French power would come up to that line. What then became of the western watershed of the Nile—about 200 or 300 miles at least—being under British influence? He thought they ought to demand a revision of the Franco-Congo Agreement. When we made a Treaty with the Congo State the French intervened and declared it null and void, and surely we had a similar right to deal with the Agreement they had now entered into with the Congo. It was essential to the just interests of this country that the territorial limit of French influence should be considered. A belt of anything like 40 or 50 miles was quite insufficient. If France were to approach to anything like that distance from our Indian frontier it would be considered a most menacing state of things, so far as British interests were concerned, and therefore they were obliged to urge these things upon the Government, and ask them to bear them in mind. He did not ask for any state- 341 ment whatever in regard to the negotiations that were pending or for a statement as to any arrangements likely to be entered into with the French Government, but on behalf of British interests he urged that this matter should not be overlooked. The fear that our arrangements with France might prove as futile as our arrangements about Siam compelled Members to urge upon the Government to take whatever course they could to guard against danger.

MR. TOMLINSON
said, no Member of the House required any justification for rising to address hon. Members with regard to a matter of first-class importance such as this. They were speaking for thousands and even millions of British subjects who were interested in the maintenance of the markets which it was our interest in Africa to preserve. What was going on now was a contest for commercial supremacy in that part of the world, and he contended that if the main lines of communication in Africa fell into the hands of France or Germany, they would be used for the purpose of excluding British merchandise, and British commercial interests would be placed in serious jeopardy; and, if they were impaired, a starving population at home would require to know why our interests had not been better protected.