§ MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposes, before the close of the Session, to state to the House what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made for the protection of the Natives of the Transvaal and the neighbouring territories?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he would answer this Question in connection with some other cognate matter connected with the Business of the House. The expectation of the Government was, as far as they could then form one, that propably before the close of the Session the exact provisions on the subject of the protection of the Natives of the Transvaal and neighbouring territories, which were embodied in the proposed Convention with the Transvaal Leaders, would be in their possession, and would be presented to the House. Of course, he could not state so positively to the House, because it was not in their power to give them absolute information. With respect to the question of the Transvaal generally, seeing the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire in his place, it might be convenient that he should state the view and intention of the Government. In the first place, it was their intention to make every effort to urge the Committee to close the proceedings on the Irish Land Bill, so far as it was concerned, during the present week. He hoped it was not an unreasonable expectation that it might close on Friday; but, should it be necessary, the Government would ask the House to sit on Saturday, rather than run the risk of passing into the succeeding week. In any event, however, they would propose that Monday next should be placed absolutely and unconditionally at the command of the House, and in the first instance, at the command of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in order that he might, if he desired it, revive the Motion of which he had given Notice with respect to the affairs of the Transvaal. That offer would be an unconditional offer, whatever might happen with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. If the right hon. Baronet, however, did not think himself called upon to avail himself of the Government proposal, in that case it was their duty to have regard to the Notices given by the other Members of the House, which were in effect substantive Motions, although they only stood on the Paper in the form of Amendments to the principal Motion of the right hon. Baronet. After all that had been said, not only in that House, but still more out of the House, and in what was called "another place," as well as various other places, 1267 the Government had considered it their duty, not only with reference to this country, but with reference to the state of South Africa, that, so far as they were concerned, they should give an opportunity for taking the judgment of the House on this subject. The two hon. Gentlemen who had given Notices on the question were the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). He understood that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was willing to give way to the Motion of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire; but, whether it was one or other of those hon. Gentlemen, he (Mr. Gladstone) should have to say that, in case the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think it his duty to proceed with his Motion, the Government would make the same offer to place Monday at the disposal of the other hon. Members. Passing from that subject, let him repeat that it was not their intention in the present Session to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill. He had nothing more to say, except that it would probably be the duty of the Government, viewing the state of the period of the year in which they had arrived, and in conformity with the spirit of previous arrangements, to ask the House, when they came to the third reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, for precedence on all the days of the week, subject, of course, to any very special application which might be made by the promoters of any particular measure, who had a good chance of passing it, to give them some accommodation for the purpose. If they should obtain that permission from the House, their intention was to apply the time which would thus be placed at their command in general conformity with what had been laid down the previous evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). They would propose to apply a certain number of hours of every evening for the purpose of going on with Supply, until they had going finished it. Of course, they would endeavour to push forward measures of a secondary character of an indispensable nature, and that did not create serious difference of opinion, by taking them in the evenings after Commitee of Supply. He would reserve the possibility of any 1268 extraordinary call which might make it the duty and general desire of the House to deviate from the general arrangement that he had proposed.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it appeared to him that, considering the statement which the Prime Minister had just made, that the terms of the Convention might be expected to be laid before the House before the end of the Session, they would be taking the Transvaal discussion at a very inconvenient time if it were taken on Monday. He would like to know when they might expect to have the terms of the Convention before them; and, more particularly, if there was any truth in the statement in the morning papers to the effect that the Commission had presented 36 Articles to the Triumvirate, of which the Triumvirate had refused 16, and that among these Articles there was no provision reserving any portion of territory to the East of the Transvaal?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with respect to the statement in the morning papers, he was ignorant of anything of the nature that was there conveyed, and he thought his ignorance must imply that no such information had reached the Colonial Office, as he had seen his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies only a few minutes ago. He had no reason to suppose that such a statement as that of the presentation of 36 Articles, and the rejection of 16 of them, was at all likely to be true. With regard to what had been said as to the inconvenience of the time for taking the discussion, it was probable that they would receive the Convention, and that therefore the right hon. Baronet would be in a position to make any comment upon it he pleased. The right hon. Baronet, however, would have to recollect that the Convention, when received here, would not be, after all, a final document. It would have to be ratified by the General Assembly, which was called the Volksraad, and before that took place, a considerable interval of time must occur, and therefore there was not the least likelihood of an absolute and final and formal settlement during the present Session.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether the action or policy of the Home Government might be regarded as concluded with the conclusion 1269 of the Convention, apart from the ratification by the Volksraad?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in the main, no doubt, that would be so; but, apart from that particular point, the Government were anxious, as he had said, to have the judgment of the House on their South African policy entirely dissociated from any fear that might exist in the minds of any persons as to inconvenient consequences in South Africa.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHBut we shall not have the Convention by Monday?
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether the terms of the Convention would not be submitted to the Government before being submitted to the Volksraad; whether, in fact, the proposal that would be laid before the Volksraad would not be the Convention as approved by the Government?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should think it would be the Convention as settled by the Commissioners. It was to be remembered that the Commissioners were almost daily engaged in making communications to Her Majesty's Government, and therefore the question whether they should refer home the final words of the Convention, the Government would be disposed to leave to their discretion.
MR. J. COWENsubsequently asked whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire intended to proceed with his Transvaal Resolution on Monday?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI will make an announcement as soon as I can.