HC Deb 05 April 1883 vol 277 cc1502-4
MR. ONSLOW

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he would state to the House, before the resumption of the Debate on the affairs of the Transvaal State, what is the nature of the remonstrance recently addressed to the Transvaal State, in pursuance of the statement made by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that remonstrances have been made by Her Majesty's Government regarding the treatment of the Natives bordering on the Transvaal, and his assurance that, as long as the Convention remained in force, these remonstrances would continue to be made; and, what is the policy of the Government in the case of these remonstrances being ineffectual?

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies informs me—and it is in accord- ance with my own recollection—that when he referred to the remonstrance addressed to the Transvaal Government he did not speak of any separate or recent transaction; but that he referred to a series of Papers to which reference could be made by the hon. Gentleman himself or by any other person. No communication has been made to the Transvaal Government since the receipt of Mr. Rutherford's Report, printed at page 38 of the Blue Book. It is understood that Dr. Jorissen, who is the Law Officer of the Transvaal Government, is now in London, and it is anticipated that he will desire to give some explanation in reference to recent transactions; and the Government, therefore, do not propose to enter upon the subject in writing until an opportunity for such an explanation shall have arisen.

MR. ONSLOW

observed, that it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies said that remonstrances had been made, and would be made, as long as the Convention should continue in force. It had also been stated in "another place" that remonstrances would be made on this subject. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen these two statements; and whether the Government were about to make any further remonstrances than they had made up to the present time?

MR. GLADSTONE

What has been stated by the hon. Member varies substantially from what I heard on the part of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State. My hon. Friend referred to a series of proceedings which could be renewed from time to time. As I have already stated, in consequence of the presence of the Law Officer of the Transvaal Government in London at this time, an opportunity will be given him of representing the views of his Government before Her Majesty's Government proceed to embody their views in any written communication.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

The right hon. Gentleman states that the Government do not propose to address a remonstrance until this Representative of the Boer Government has made some communication. I wish to know whether the Government intend to leave the initiative to him?

MR. GLADSTONE

I did not say that we should make no communication until this gentleman had communicated with us. My words were, "until he had had an opportunity of making a communication."

LORD JOHN MANNERS

asked if the arrival of the Law Officer had been intimated to Her Majesty's Government?

MR. GLADSTONE

I understand he has arrived. Any notification will be made to the Colonial Department, and, as a matter of course, will not come under my notice.

MR. ONSLOW

The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the debate on the Transvaal shall be resumed to-morrow week. Will he give us any fresh information before that debates comes on?

MR. GLADSTONE

Yes.