HC Deb 15 August 1878 vol 242 cc2061-81
MR. COURTNEY,

in rising to call attention to the recent Correspondence between the Transvaal Delegates and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, apologized to the House for bringing the matter forward at that period, and said: There are reasons why I think my course is inevitable, and why I have been unable before this evening to introduce my Motion to the House. In the first place, we have been unable to discuss this question of the Transvaal; because, until yesterday, the Papers on the subject were not printed and in the hands of Members. Had we had the pleasure of receiving them before, I should have hoped we might have discussed the matter at greater length, and in the presence of more Members. I may be asked, why we are not content with the circulation of these Papers? but I am sorry to observe that the journals who have taken any notice of these Papers have contented themselves with printing an extract, or extracts, from the answer of the Colonial Secretary, and have not given their readers any idea of the outside views of the question; so that, if we depended upon that alone, the country would get a very inadequate view of the situation. I think it will always be admitted that the question has gained importance from the fact that the Delegates have come over to this country to lay their case before Parliament; and that it would be, to say the least, impolitic, if they were to be allowed to go back to their own country saying that they were obliged to go back without having any discussion of their grievances in the Houses of Parliament. It would be desirable, on account of the relations between them and ourselves, that there should be some reference to the subject in the House of Commons; and although I promised I would be as brief as I possibly could in introducing my view of the case, I think I should be neglecting altogether my duty if I showed any unwillingness to enter upon a consideration of the question. Now, I do not propose to re-open the exciting controversies that occupied us last year. I do not propose to enter into the fundamental questions of policy which are at the bottom of the action taken last year; but I wish to direct attention to the actual state of things as now existing in the Transvaal, and to ask hon. Members to inquire of themselves what ought to be done in the present state of affairs? In April last year the Transvaal territory was re-annexed to England. I say re-annexed, because, at the Sand River Convention of 1852, we claimed then to exercise control over it. But by the Convention, which was ratified by those whom we may call the ancestors of the present Government, we acknowledged the independence of the Transvaal. But this annexation was justified on these grounds. It was said that the Government of this country was, in the highest degree, dangerous to its neighbours; that the Natives of the territories contiguous to the Transvaal had discovered, for the first time, the feebleness of the Government of the Transvaal; and that it was, therefore, dangerous to our Colonies at the Cape that the Transvaal Government should be allowed to exist in that state of feebleness. Now, as to the question of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. In the Commission given to him authorizing him, under certain conditions, to proclaim the annexation of the Transvaal, he was told to do it with the concurrence of certain authorities. The Lord High Commissioner at the Capo was to be satisfied of the concurrence of the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves. Well, he did not obtain any formal act of sanction from the Lord High Commissioner, and he had no proof to offer that the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves were friendly to the annexation; but he certainly assumed that they were thus friendly. Without that the annexation was incomplete, and the first thing that ought to have been cleared up was the action of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. Well, last year a Deputation came over from the Transvaal to see the Earl of Carnarvon, to remonstrate upon what had been done, and to beg that it might be undone. They saw the Earl of Carnarvon, who received them in the most friendly manner, snowing them that the Act could not be revoked; but expressing his strong opinion that it was approved by the inhabitants of the Transvaal. He did not assert that that was the condition upon which his approbation of the Act depended, or that if it were disproved he would be content to give back to the inhabitants of the Transvaal their independence. But he did strongly assert that the inhabitants of the Transvaal were willing to assent to the annexation. Well, Sir, the Delegates who came over here were taken aback by that declaration. They themselves were firmly persuaded of the contrary; and when the Earl of Carnarvon offered them some kind of evidence in establishment of his case, they did not know what to do. At all events, they did not complete the instructions given to them when they left the Transvaal. They did not go to other Powers, as they had been desired to do if they failed in England. They went back to the Transvaal, and there reported the result of their mission. Well, when they got back, they were received with some sort of anger, and even suspicion. I rather think there was a feeling among the Dutch inhabitants of the Transvaal that their Delegates had deserted their duty. They could not understand how it was possible for Delegates to come over here and honestly fulfil their duty, and could have failed of success. In fact, there was some sort of belief that the Delegates had been bought over. There was a good deal of anger and suspicion felt; and I think that is an element which must be taken into account in forming a view of the present condition of the Transvaal territory. Well, the Delegates, I think, had no great difficulty in removing that suspicion; but it was at once resolved to take steps to disprove that assertion which the Earl of Carnarvon had made, and upon which he relied strongly, though he did not make it a condition upon which the annexation had depended. They took steps, by canvassing their countrymen and acting by means of a Memorial to the present Secretary of State, to show that, so far from there being a majority in favour of annexation, the vast preponderance of fooling was strongly against annexation. The Delegates met their countrymen, reported the condition of affairs, and, after a discussion, it was resolved to get up the Memorial. Of course, it was necessary that it should be circulated throughout the Transvaal, in order to obtain the signatures of the Dutch farmers. Thereupon the Administrator —Sir Theophilus Shepstone—issued a Proclamation, which shows, I think, in a very marked light, the attitude of his mind in regard to the administration of this country. I should have thought it would have been the clear right of the inhabitants of the Transvaal to have got up such a Memorial, so as to have represented what their views and wishes were. There is no allegation at present of their taking any steps beyond that of demonstrating their views. There is no suggestion of any action of a hostile nature being contemplated in order to enforce their demands. But Sir Theophilus Shepstone issues a Proclamation, which begins with this Preamble:— Whereas the return from Europe of the Transvaal Deputation has been made the occasion, by designing persons, of creating and fostering agitation and alarm by imposing upon the credulity and ignorance of the quietly disposed inhabitants of this country, and of endeavouring, by the illegal use or assumption of authority—such as banding together of themselves into committees for the purpose of misleading the public, and coercing individuals by false representations, threats, and seditious utterances—to cause disturbances in the land, and to bring misfortune upon an innocent people. The grammar of the Proclamation is a little obscure. There are the beginnings of a number of sentences, and no endings. But the Proclamation goes a little further— And, whereas the setting on foot of the said Memorial and other documents was promoted by a spirit of sedition, and their obvious object at the time known by those who permitted it to be; Now, therefore, I do call upon, enjoin, and strictly charge all peaceably disposed and orderly persons to aid the officers of the Government in maintaining order, and in bringing to justice the seditious agitators who have endeavoured, and are still endeavouring, to mislead the people of the Transvaal to commit a breach of the public peace and acts of sedition against Her Majesty's Government, thereby bringing serious misfortune upon the country and its inhabitants; And I do further hereby warn all such mischievous and evil-disposed persons as may he found to be fomenting or instigating any such unlawful agitation, and who, by threats, seditious words, whether spoken, written, or printed, or by any other means, are engaged in inciting the people of this country to acts of disloyalty, sedition, resistance to or rebellion against the Government, that they are hereby made and held liable, and subject, under the law and this my Proclamation, to imprisonment, fine, and such other and further punishments as the law may direct. Now, Sir, I will pass on to the result which, ensued. It is to be found in page 9— To us were handed over 157 distinct Memorials, of which 125 were signed by enfranchised burghers, who were against the annexation, and thus against British rule, and 31 signed by enfranchised burghers of the South African Republic, who were in favour of annexation, and therefore satisfied with British rule; while we have found one Memorial signed by enfranchised burghers of the South African Republic, who were against annexation, but further signed as a true copy. On the 125 distinct Memorials handed over to us signed against the annexation, we have found 6,591 signatures; on the 31 Memorials signed for the annexation, 587 signatures; while on the Memorial signed as a true copy, 85 signatures were found. Well, there you have 125 Memorials against annexation, and 31 for it—say, a majority of about 4 to 1. To the 125 distinct Memorials which are against annexation, we have 6,591 signatures; while to the 31 Memorials in favour of annexation, there are only 587 signatures. So that the actual signatures against annexation are in a majority of nearly 12 to 1. It must be added that the 6,591 signatures are those of the adult males of the Transvaal—the total number of adult males in the Transvaal being 8,000. Thus, out of a total of 8,000, you have nearly 6,600 declaring their total unwillingness to annexation. Well, Sir, that being the case, those Memorials were sent over here to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Secretary has given a reply to them. In that reply, I understand the right hon. Gentleman threw away altogether this question of the proportions. I admitted last year that the Earl of Carnarvon stated that he would make the annexation dependent upon the consent of the majority; but when it was no longer possible to maintain it on that ground, it was thrown over, and the annexation was justified for other reasons. The prospect is very vague and uncertain, when you come to consider what is to be the future of your government of this country you have annexed; for you have 6,600 adult males out of a total population of 8,000 adult males, strongly protesting against annexation. The other ground on which the annexation is justified is stated to be that the weakness of the Transvaal was an encouragement to the Native tribes in the adjoining territories to assume a warlike attitude, not only to the Transvaal, but to the English Settlements. To those allegations the inhabitants of the Transvaal have given a very firm and, I confess, for my own part, I think, a very conclusive reply. I do not propose to go through it; but I wish I could persuade hon. Members to look through it, for I think then they would agree with me, that a strong case is made out against the position of those who advocated annexation. But that has reference to a point of policy which I do not wish now to re-open. I am still of opinion that that policy was wrong; but I desire now to go to the more practical question of what is now to be done. In 1852, the English Government, in a very solemn way, recognized the independence of the Boers of the Transvaal, and allowed them to manage their own affairs. That was not done rashly, but after a great amount of consideration of the policy to be adopted. I was looking the other day at a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1852, in which he said— Our policy in South Africa has been one of changes, as a sick man changes from side to side, in the endeavour to find relief. In 1852, after a long period of vacillation, the Government of the Earl of Derby recognized the propriety of drawing the line in South Africa, and respecting the independence of those on the other side of the line, so as to keep a State interposed between ourselves and the uncivilized inhabitants of the territories beyond. That was recognized as our best policy, and was adopted until 1877, when it was entirely reversed. The Delegates who come before us now, bringing this protest from twelve-thirteenths of the inhabitants, wind up the Letter which they have sent to the Secretary of State by setting forth and protesting against divers grievances. They say— We know that as a subject-people who have been deprived of their independence by such means, there will be before us many years of bitter heartburnings, of ill-feeling, of desertion of homes, and of wild and objectless wanderings; while, on the other hand, with justice and with freedom, there is every reason to hope that the Transvaal may join hand-in-hand with the neighbouring States and Colonies to work together for mutual prosperity and happiness, and for the extension of civilization and Christianity into the far interior. I beg to draw the attention of hon. Members to the future which these men hold out for the Transvaal. That is a future of which many of them have had a precisely similar experience, and the memory of it is fresh with them. They went into the Orange River Territory, and we followed them there; and they then went into the Transvaal, which we have now re-annexed. In reference to the prospect which this Memorial now holds out, as to still further emigration, I will read what Sir Harry Smith wrote to Earl Grey, 30 years ago, with regard to the Boers— On my arrival at the foot of the Drachensberg Mountains, I was almost paralyzed to witness the whole of the population, with few exceptions, emigrating. Rains on this side of the mountains are tropical, and now prevail, and these families were exposed to a state of misery which I never before saw equalled, except in Massena's invasion of Portugal, when the whole of the population of that part of the seat of war abandoned their homes and fled—the scene here was truly heartrending. That was 30 years ago, and the lads that then took part in that immigration are now the adult males of the Transvaal territory; while the younger men have had the story of that immigration told them and now realize the truth of it, and entertain feelings of animosity towards the English nation. They have now revived in them this grievance, for they have again the prospect of being driven out into the wilderness. If I could convey to hon. Members here anything of the impression which I have derived from intercourse with the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, I think they would be impressed, as I have been, with the very serious nature of the future before these people. The Delegates have come here to appeal to your justice and your sense of humanity; but it does not appear that they have a very hopeful prospect, but will have to go back with feelings of gloom and of oppression. The gloom is caused by the thought of what may happen in the Transvaal if they are forced to leave that territory. They remember the anger and rage which was excited last year among their fellow Boers; and when they go back the same feeling of anger will be again excited, only to a greater extent. Probably they will resolve once more to take themselves unto the wilderness. These are men with whom it is difficult for us altogether to sympathize. Their education and their position are so entirely different from our own; they are so like our ancestors of many years ago. They are honest, healthy men— simple in manner and simple in their mode of life—resolved to go forth into the wilderness, if they must go, in defence of their rights. It struck me that a typical illustration of the tone of these men and of the two Delegates who have been sent over to England, was to be seen in the parting words addressed to those Delegates, that they might, like Joshua, the son of Nun— Be strong and of a good courage, for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee. They have already received some grounds for apprehension; but I must read something more to enable the House to form a true idea of what the actual condition of the Transvaal now is. There has been another Memorial, I may mention, which has been drawn up in the Transvaal and laid before Parliament, coming from those who were strongly in favour of annexation. Most of the Memorialists were English settlers who had strayed over the Border, and who would make a considerable profit in the event of annexation. The Memorial is, therefore, from men who are not averse to British Sovereignty; but are strongly averse to the way in which British Sovereignty has been maintained. I will now read something to show what British Sovereignty in the Transvaal now is. The Memorial begins by saying— Upon the faith of which [the Proclamation and Address of Sir Theophilus Shepstone of 12th April, 1877] and in order to avoid civil strife and confusion, many of your Petitioners assisted or acquiesced in the annexation and military occupation of the late Republic.…. That it was distinctly promised to your Petitioners by Sir Theophilus Shepstone when he deprived them of their independence that in view of an alleged inherent weakness of the Republic, the British Government would afford the inhabitants of the State that security and protection which they were unable to obtain by themselves; that all legal Courts of Justice in existence at the time of the annexation should be continued; that the Transvaal should remain a separate Government with its own laws and Legislature; that the laws then in force should be retained until altered by competent legislative authority; that all private bonâ fide rights to property guaranteed by the late Government and all bonâ, fide concessions and contracts should be honourably maintained and respected; And, furthermore— That, as soon as it might be convenient, some of Her Majesty's troops would enter this country, although they were not to do so to coerce the people; but to show those by whom they wore surrounded that with the changes in the form of ruling the country, would also come a great and necessary accession of strength to enable Her Majesty's Government to discharge the obligations it had undertaken. They go on to say— That in direct violation of the aforesaid promises, upon the strength of which the inhabitants of the late Republic were willing to give a peaceable trial to the new order of things, your Petitioners find that after twelve months' experience of the Government of Theophilus Shepstone, the following are among the most prominent of his breaches of faith:—That, in the first place, he has utterly failed to give to the people the promised protection against the Natives, and is even now compelled to call for Volunteers to do the work which ought to be done by the Imperial troops in the settlement of the still pending Secocoeni revolt, for the suppression of which it was stated that the mere entry of British troops into this country was sufficient. And your Petitioners say generally, as regards the Native question, that the present position of the country is far more critical than under the old régime. That, in violation of the promise to retain all legal Courts of Justice at the time of annexation, Sir Theophilus has, by arbitrary Proclamation, abolished the system of trial by jury as exemplified in the old Courts of Landdrost and Heemraden of this country, and instituted a new High Court and a totally unfamiliar system of legal procedure, administered under the supervision of only one Judge in place of a bench of three (as agreed upon by the late Government), and in disregard of the acceptance of office of a second, if not a third Judge; and your Petitioners further complain that the duties of the civil gaol officials and of the civil police, even on the floor of the High Court itself, have been usurped by the military authorities, under orders of the Administrator. That the Legislature (Volksraad) of this territory has been dissolved, and no deliberative Representative Assembly of any kind substituted for it, although promised in his Excellency's Proclamation of 12th April, 1877. That the laws of the country are being altered by mere Government Proclamation or Notice, and this without any prospect of the granting of any political Constitution to the country. That with reference to the promised non-coercion by the British troops or authorities, your Petitioners respectively complain that at a meeting which was held at Pretoria on the return of their Commissioners, Messrs. Paul Kruger and Jorissen, from Europe, certain artillery was trained upon the meeting, and the troops were held in readiness to overawe the meeting. This is a Memorial, be it remembered, from those who are not disinclined to annexation, and it plainly shows that at present there exists in the Transvaal a system of despotism such as ought not to exist. It is a most material question for your consideration what you will do with the Transvaal if it is recognized as a necessity that the authorities should have despotic power, and that the Commissioner may, of his own free will, make and unmake laws and keep the whole country in subjection, and may dispose of the rights of property and liberties of the people, in what may be the well-considered determination of his own breast, but which may be but the mere result of a whim? That is the man who announced that the people of the Transvaal were not within their right in getting up a Memorial. It is the undoubted right of every competent person in a free State to memorialize the Government; but Sir Theophilus Shepstone warned the inhabitants of the Transvaal that they would be guilty of seditious acts if, in some Petition or other, they manifested their dissatisfaction with the annexation. The question for Her Majesty's Government to consider is, what will be the future of a country you have annexed, in which you find 6,600 adult males out of a population of 8,000 repudiating your authority, and your High Commissioner, so inflated with a sense of his position, that he is of his own will abolishing the legislative and financial systems, and bringing the whole country to such a state of irritation that it is only retained in your grasp by the power of the High Commissioner? If we conduct the government of a territory in that manner, it will inevitably become, not only a troublesome, but a most burdensome and most costly task. For the mere sake of economy, you must wish that the revenues of a country should pay for the costs of its government; but the condition into which you have reduced the Transvaal hardly renders that feasible at present. What would be the nature of the government of the Transvaal, even if all the inhabitants of the Transvaal were contented with it? Let hon. Members consider that problem. The extent of territory in the Transvaal is about the size of France, with a population of 8,000 adult males. They are so scattered about the country that, with the exception of a few villages and large parts containing about 200 inhabitants each, the farms are distant from one another 10, 20, or 30 miles. That is a country which can exist without almost any Government, if it is left alone. The Transvaal did so exist; and in the Memorial presented to the right hon. Gentleman, it is stated that for many years it practically existed without any Government. If undisturbed, all that has to be done in such a country is to keep order and repress robbery. And in a population of that kind the amount of disorder and robbery is not great. Those matters were easily looked after by the Boers, and the country practically existed without any Government at all. But if you take that country into your own hands and make it an English Colony, you have to give it a scientific form of government, and even if the inhabitants were perfectly willing subjects, you have to keep up an organization totally disproportionate to the end proposed. In fact, it would be impossible, on the part of any Government, to organize the government of this part of Africa according to English ideas, even if the inhabitants of the territory were willing to accept it. The United States, who have tried this sort of thing over and over again, would never have undertaken the task we have set ourselves in South Africa. You have sent out, as Commissioner, Mr. Sergeaunt, to make a Report upon the financial condition of the Transvaal. Where is the Report? It has not been laid before Parliament.

SIR. MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

That Report will be presented to Parliament with the next batch of Papers relating to the subject of the Transvaal.

MR. COURTNEY

I am glad to hear that, because we shall then be able to estimate for ourselves what probability there is that the Colony will pay its own expenses. When it is before us, I am satisfied that it will show us that the government of the Colony must be exceedingly expensive; and, indeed, that it is impossible to govern the Transvaal out of its own resources, if you are going to govern it on the same footing as though it were an English Colony. And that would be the case, even if the people of the Transvaal were willing that you should govern, and lent you all the assistance in their power. But you have, on the contrary, the assurance that they are unwilling that you should govern them. Out of the 8,000 males in the territory, 6,600 have protested against your going there. On this point, let me read to you an extract from a pamphlet, which was printed for private circulation, which a friend—I do not quite know who, at this moment—sent me yesterday. It is a most admirable paper, and it contains the materials for a speech that was never delivered, collected by the late Sir William Moles-worth, who devoted his great powers, in a large measure, to the consideration of the method of governing our Colonies, especially those of South Africa. In 1852, Sir William Moles-worth did make a speech, in which he gave expression to some of the ideas set forth in this pamphlet; but these materials were collected for a speech which he conceived in 1854, and proposed to deliver in Parliament, in approbation of Lord Derby's policy of abandoning the Orange River Territory. In the course of his argument, he entered into the consideration of what would be the expense of governing that territory. In adverting to the probable cost of governing the Colony, he says— When I consider that 100,000 warlike savages inhabit the mountain fastnesses of the Orange River Territory; that its frontier is open for 400 miles to the incursions of the Zoolahs, and other fierce Tribes of the great South African race; that there are, beyond the Vaal, 20,000 independent Boers, sympathizing with their 10,000 disaffected kinsmen in the Orange River Territory; when I reflect upon the difficulty of procuring succour from the distant military posts of the Colony of the Capo of Good Hope, I feel convinced that Sir George Cathcart has not over-estimated, at 2,000 men, the military force which would be required to retain possession of the Orange River Territory. I should also observe that this estimate was made by Sir George Cathcart before we had learnt, from experience, the surprising efficiency of the Basuto Cavalry, both in number and equipments. Let us next consider the cost of maintaining a body of 2,000 troops in the interior of South Africa. In addition to the ordinary military expenditure, we should have, in the first instance, to provide barracks for them. But building in the Orange River Territory is excessively expensive—three or four times as much as in this country—for the territory is destitute of materials for building, scarcely a stick of timber grows on it. The cheapest wood used is the Norway pine, which is brought 400 miles, from the nearest seaport, over a country without roads; and when buildings are erected, they soon become dilapidated, their walls decaying under the ravages of ants, which swarm in all the soil and through all the flooring. Secondly, we should have to import into the Orange River Territory all military stores, clothing, and every commodity required for the use of the soldiers, with the exception only of beef, mutton, and grain. The cost of conveying goods to the Orange River Territory is very great, for they have to be brought, either from Port Elizabeth or from the Cape of Good Hope, in waggons, each of them drawn by a span of 14 oxen. The journey from Port Elizabeth occupies, at least, six weeks, and from Cape Town, at least, two months. To add to the difficulty of these journeys, during the dry season, water near the road is scarce, and wood, either dry or green, sufficient to boil a camp-kettle, must, at all times, be carried for distances of several days' journey; and in seasons of drought, which are of common occurrence, the country is impassable. For instance, the surgeon in charge of a detatchment at Bloen Fontein was, for a year, very short of medicines, in consequence of the drought rendering the country so impassable that the periodical consignment of these supplies remained, for many months, at a distance of 150 miles, without a possibility of his getting them conveyed to Bloen Fontein. For these reasons, I am convinced that I have not overestimated, at £200,000 a-year, the cost of maintaining a body of 2,000 troops in the Orange River Territory; one-fourth of them to be Cavalry. At this rate of expenditure, the Orange River Territory would cost us about £20 per head per annum for every person of European descent in it; and about £400 per head, per annum, for every British settler. No wonder that these gentlemen, both store-keepers and land-jobbers, are so vehement in their assertions that the honour of England requires us to retain possession of the Orange River Territory. In all probability, the military expenditure would decuple their trade. Now, that is just our position with regard to the Transvaal. These figures might apply equally well to that territory; and, indeed, the case of the Transvaal is even more striking, because that territory is further off than the Orange River Settlement, and the difficulty of governing it would be correspondingly greater. I ask—"How do you propose to work out the problem of governing the Transvaal from its own resources?" The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his reply to the Delegates from the Transvaal, merely gave them the advice to return home, and keep quiet, and accept the situation. I have already shown the state of feeling in the Transvaal, and there is much to show that if the Delegates are dismissed with a few smooth words, while, practically, they obtain nothing, it will be difficult to appease those feelings, and to repress the disaffection, which we have good reason to believe exists throughout the territory. I have already admitted fully that if it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect ourselves, we are justified in annexing this territory by the doctrine which holds good in politics as well as in morals—that extreme necessity justifies all things. That doctrine, however, ought to be acted upon with extreme caution, because it involves the sacrifice of others for our own benefit; and if we are going to sacrifice the Transvaal for our own benefit, we should make some allowance for the feelings of the inhabitants, and stretch a point in their favour if we can possibly do so. When you compel a householder to give up possession of his house, you give him a bonus for turning him out; but in this case, when you take possession of territory against the will of the inhabitants, you appear to be willing to give them nothing but soft and empty words, and to do nothing to prevent the ripening of that danger, the elements of which at present exist in the Transvaal. I have myself seen the Delegates from that territory, and I confess that I was very much impressed by the way in which they stated the position in which they were placed. I asked them whether there was any possibility of coming to an agreement on this very important question; but they informed me that they had no authority to accept any terms of settlement, and that they had a difficulty in understanding why England should not withdraw from the steps which she had taken, and recognize the independence of the Transvaal. Of course, they have a difficulty in understanding that; but those who keep their minds free on this question must see that for us to withdraw the step, and to reestablish the independence of the Transvaal, would be scarcely practicable—and, indeed, I myself should almost shrink from recommending Her Majesty's Advisers to restore the independence of the Transvaal which has been taken away; but, at the same time, I think that we should give the Delegates some message which they might take back to those who sent them, which would remove the elements of disaffection to which I have alluded. We have told the inhabitants of this territory that we were obliged to undertake its control in order to maintain peace in South Africa, and we say that the misgovernment or the weak government of the Transvaal was a danger not only to themselves, but to us, which we were bound to guard against at any cost. Now, if we could take the necessary steps to insure peace in South Africa, and, at the same time, satisfy the aspirations of the inhabitants of the Transvaal for freedom and for self-government, I hope that we shall see gradually disappear from their minds the idea of a forcible attempt to re-assert their independence, which, at present, is undoubtedly simmering in the territory. The Delegates appeared to believe in the possibility of our recognizing their independence, and of our entering into an offensive and defensive alliance with them. That, of course, I feel is an impossibility. There is, however, a plan which appears to me to be worthy of consideration. We want to secure peace, and, at the same time, we ought to give the inhabitants as much freedom and self-government as possible. It occurs to me that something of this kind might be agreed upon. Why not say to these men who have been sent over to this country as Representatives of the Transvaal—"You are bent upon having your own institutions and self-government; but, at the same time, we must be protected against the danger which may spring from your quarrels with your neighbours, or with the Natives; and, therefore, we propose that troops under English command should be stationed at two or three points, where they would be able to operate most conveniently, and that the Transvaal should pay a certain proportion of the expense of keeping those troops, upon the understanding that the legitimate desire for freedom on the part of the inhabitants of that territory should be satisfied." We should not wish to throw the whole expense of keeping those troops upon the Transvaal, because they would be stationed in the territory not only for their own benefit, but for ours. Neither would it be necessary that those troops should consist of Her Majesty's Regular troops. They might be a force locally raised, but under the command of the Lord High Commissioner. If some proposal of this kind were made so that it might he discussed, we might fairly hope that the relations between this country and the Transvaal might be placed on such a footing, that while we might be secured against all the danger which was apprehended, the inhabitants of the territory might, at the same time, be made con- tensed with their position. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to say a word in this direction to the Delegates before they depart, which would give those who sent them a fair hope that local autonomy would be conceded, things might easily be put straight, and the inhabitants might be satisfied; but to send the Delegates back with no more than the Letter before us will be to prepare a great deal of trouble for ourselves in the future. I cannot help thinking that some plan of this kind might be adopted, and that it would lead to excellent results. I am bound, however, to say that there is another consideration that we cannot overlook. You have at present as Special Commissioner and Administrator of the Government of the Transvaal, Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Theophilus Shepstone is described as being an indispensable man. But he has been discredited by his actions in that part of the world, as no public man has been discredited before, upon questions involving precisely the same issue as those before us; and it was he who pursuaded Lord Carnarvon to adopt the line of policy which led to the annexation of the Transvaal. I have heard it said that an indispensable man is one who ought to be at once dispensed with; and my opinion is, that unless you get rid of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, you will have no peace in South Africa. This is the man who is raising the passions which are making their presence felt in the Transvaal. In the Notice of Motion which I gave yesterday, I stated that it was my intention to conclude with a Motion to the effect that it is desirable that steps should be taken to restore local autonomy in the Transvaal Territory. That Motion does not appear in the Paper today; but by way of putting upon record my views on this subject, I propose, if it is in accordance with the Rules of the House; to make a Motion, although, of course, I shall not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question. I, therefore, beg to conclude by moving— That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that steps shall be taken to restore local autonomy to the Transvaal.

MR. SPEAKER

As the Question before the House is the adjournment of the House, no Amendment can be moved, except one having reference to the time at which the House shall meet.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I quite admit that a question of this importance is one that ought to be discussed in this House, and I also freely acquit the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) of all blame in not bringing forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session. But I think that he has trespassed to a great extent upon the patience and the forbearance of the House by the manner in which he has brought this subject under their notice. I do, however, trust that what has passed this evening will have this good effect—that it will convince those gentlemen who are now in this country as Delegates from the Transvaal, that even at this period of the Session, and under existing circumstances, the House of Commons, or at least that portion of it which is left in London, is willing to give to their case the best possible attention. The hon. Member for Liskeard appears to have based all his argument upon the objection he has always entertained to the annexation of the Transvaal. But that matter was fully discussed, and was finally decided, last year; and it seems to me that it was not only unnecessary, but even absolutely mischievous, that it should be again raised this evening by the hon. Member. In my judgment, the greater portion of his speech can only have the effect of exciting hopes in the minds of the Delegates and of those whom they represent which it is utterly wrong to excite, because it is absolutely impossible that they can be gratified. And the line that the hon. Member for Liskeard has taken is the more to be deprecated, because, not only does he know perfectly well that when the question of the annexation of the Transvaal was discussed, he was one of the very few hon. Members in this House who did not agree in the wisdom and propriety of that policy; but he must also be aware that if he were now to propose that we should recede from the policy we have pursued, he would scarcely find another hon. Member who would agree with him on the subject. It has been admitted, almost unanimously, that the annexation of the Transvaal was a necessary step for us to take. I entirely agree that it is a step which entailed a grave and serious responsibility upon this country, which ought not to have been taken, unless it was absolutely necessary, and which we did take most reluctantly. I freely admit that there are difficulties before us in the matter, though I think that they have been exaggerated by the hon. Member for Liskeard—if, indeed, some have not been entirely invented by those from whom he derived his information. In the first place, I must say that there was nothing whatever in Lord Carnarvon's expression of opinion last year, either in "another place," or in his conversations with the Delegates from the Transvaal, which could justify the latter in assuming that the question of the annexation of that territory could be submitted to a vote of the majority of the people. The Delegates, however, appear to have conveyed that impression on their return; but it was utterly without foundation; and it is to be regretted that they had not a little more moral courage, and did not state what they must have known was the case— that the question of annexation was one which had been decided by Lord Carnarvon, and could not be re-opened. That decision of Lord Carnarvon met with the practically unanimous approval of the people of this country; and any idea that the annexation was to be subject to the popular vote of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, or could be affected by signatures to a Memorial, was one which Lord Carnarvon could not have entertained for a moment. The Delegates, as the hon. Member for Liskeard says, have returned to this country with this Memorial. That is the sole new fact in the case. In my reply to the Memorial, I stated some reasons to which the hon. Member for Liskeard did not refer, to show why I was unable to attach the importance which the Delegates did to the number of signatures to that Memorial. The hon. Member has animadverted upon the line of action taken by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and upon the terms of the Proclamation which he issued. It is not my office to defend the grammar of the Proclamation, or even the precise terms in which it is couched; but I must say that, looking at the condition of the whole of South Africa at the time, and at the danger of disturbance on the frontiers, I think that Sir Theophilus Shepstone was justified in adopting the principles of action upon which his Proclamation is based, and the result was, that certain persons to whom the Proclamation was addressed saw the danger of the course they were pursuing, and desisted from it. Well, the Memorial was signed, as the hon. Member states, by a considerable number of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, and it has been brought over to this country and has been presented to me, and I have replied to it in the Letter which is now upon the Table of the House. I do not want to go through the Letter, neither do I wish upon this occasion to re-open the whole history of our South African Colonies. In that Letter, however, I felt it to be my duty to enter into the arguments which the Delegates brought forward in support of their request for the re-establishment of the independence of the Transvaal. I will only say, with regard to this matter, that when the hon. Member for Liskeard refers to the policy which was adopted in 1852, and suggests that it should be reverted to, that the events which have occurred since then have most clearly proved that that policy was wrong and. dangerous, and it is for that reason that it was reversed by my Predecessor in Office last year. The hon. Member for Liskeard appeared to suggest that it was possible that the people of the Transvaal should be, what he calls, left to themselves. But the result of adopting such a course was the condition of things that was fully discussed last year, and which was well known to the House. The hon. Member says of my reply that it does nothing but advise, in vague and smooth words, the people of the Transvaal to be quiet. I will just venture to read to the House the last two paragraphs of that reply, because I think they will show that I have not met this request on the part of the Delegates from the Transvaal by empty words; but have expressed my anxiety that, as far as possible, the policy which we have adopted, and which the hon. Member himself appears to think must now be followed, shall be carried out in a manner that will conduce to the prosperity and to the welfare of the Colony. I say— I gladly leave this subject in order to assure you of the warm interest felt by Her Majesty's Government in the moral and material welfare of the Transvaal, and their desire to promote it by every means in their power. I am anxious to secure your co-operation, and that of those on whose behalf you have addressed me, in an endeavour to arrive at some full and satisfactory understanding respecting the future of your country; and especially as to the principles upon which it may be possible to base a Constitutional and Administrative system which may preserve many of the most valued institutions of the Transvaal, under the protection and supervision afforded by the Queen's Sovereignty. The people of the Province were clearly informed by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, in his Proclamation, that 'the Transvaal would remain a separate Government, with its own Laws and Legislature; and that it was the wish of Her Most Gracious Majesty that it should enjoy the fullest legislative privileges compatible with the circumstances of the country and the intelligence of its people.' You are aware that the present system of government, though continued, in consequence of the unsettled state of the country, for a longer term than had been contemplated, is altogether temporary and provisional. The hon. Member has referred to the personal action of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. I do not intend now to enter upon the particular charges which are contained in passages which he has quoted from the Memorial addressed, not to me, but to Sir Bartle Frere, and which the latter believes to be entirely without foundation. I am at present merely dealing with the opinions which I have myself expressed. I go on to say— It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that no time shall be lost in carrying out the promises given in the Proclamation, so as to satisfy the wishes of those who deprecate any avoidable departure from the old Constitution of the country; whether it will be in their power to proceed at once with that policy depends in a great measure upon you, and upon all over whom you have influence. I earnestly recommend you, and those on whose behalf you act, to turn your attention from that which is impossible to those much-needed reforms and undertakings on the necessity of which all are agreed, and to co-operate loyally and heartily with Her Majesty's Government in concerting such measures as may make the Transvaal a prosperous, contented, and self-supporting country. If I were to emulate the length of the hon. Member's speech, I could say nothing more than is included in the words I have read. It was necessary, for reasons fully stated last year, to extend the Sovereignty of the Queen over this territory. It is necessary to retain control over the Native policy there pursued—that necessity exists in the interest of the whole of South Africa—I may say, in the interest of the whole of the White and Native races. But, saving Imperial questions, and matters directly connected with them, I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard can be, that the people of the Transvaal shall manage their own affairs. I will devote—indeed, I have already devoted —much serious consideration to the manner in which that may best be done. I have instructed Sir Bartle Frere to visit that part of South Africa, and, in concert with Sir Theophilus Shepstone, to suggest to me a mode by which that object may be carried out; and I will only say, in conclusion, that if the Delegates, when they return to the Transvaal, will co-operate with the Government here, and with the Government in South Africa, in regard to this matter, they will find that, subject to the points which I have named, it is our great anxiety to deal with them and with their country so as to give them, as fully as possible, that self-government which they desire.

Question put, and agreed to.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock.