§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the terms and conditions of Cetywayo's restoration to Zululand, as laid down by Her Majesty's Government and assented to by Cetywayo, included an undertaking not to permit the existence of any military system within his territory; to respect the boundaries of the territories of his neighbours; not to make war on any Chiefs or people without the sanction of the British Government; and to refer any unsettled disputes with any Chief, people, or Government, to the arbitration of the British Government; and, whether by the erection of military kraals, or by attacks on his neighbours, Cetywayo has broken, or connived at the breach of, any of these conditions; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to insist on their fulfilment; or to permit them to remain a dead letter, like certain articles of the Transvaal Convention?
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDBefore the Question is answered, Sir, I wish to ask you a Question on a point of Order —namely, whether the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman's Question are not a breach of the Rules of the House against the introduction of argument into Questions?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member refers to the last two lines of the Question?
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDYes, Sir.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is scarcely necessary to say that the last two lines might involve controversial questions; but, 896 under the circumstances, I have not thought it right to interpose.
§ MR.EVELYN ASHLEYSir, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the first part of his Question, to pages 113 and 250 of the last Blue Book, where he will find the ipsissimaverba of the conditions assented to by Cetywayo; and Papers which I laid on the Table last Monday will enable the right hon. Gentleman to judge of Cetywayo's behaviour since his restoration. The latter part of the Question, although I would not venture to criticize anything drafted by the right hon. Gentleman, appears to my untutored mind to read more like a Party charge than a request for information; but using what the lawyers call the cy près doctrine, I presume the right hon. Gentleman means only to ask whether circumstances lately reported demand, in the opinion of the Government, their active intervention. This is the same Question as was put yesterday by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); and I can only repeat that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, nothing appears at present to call for such intervention.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI do not think I ever heard a more unsatisfactory reply. I wish now merely to give Notice that I shall consult with my Friends as to the best way of calling the attention of the House to the subject.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask a Question with reference to the answer of the Under Secretary; and it is this—Whether the House is to understand that the slaughter of 6,000 of Cetywayo's followers in Zululand does not call for interference on the part of Her Majosty's Government?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYI will only ask the noble Lord to study the conditions before putting a Question of that sort.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI will repeat the Question on Monday.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHWhen will the Zulu Papers to which the Under Secretary has referred be in the hands of Members?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYI cannot say. I laid them on the Table on Monday, and they were sent to the printers. I will accelerate them, of course, as much as possible.