§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state to the House the contents of telegrams sent by the Transvaal Government to the High Commissioner, or to Her Majesty's Government, on September 16th and 19th, 1884; and whether Her Majesty's Government telegraphed any reply; and, if so, on what date and to what effect? In putting the Question, the right hon. Gentleman said—I wish to say a few words in explanation of this Question. On the 10th of October a telegram from South Africa appeared, I think, in The Times newspaper, purporting to give the text of a message sent by Mr. Krüger to Lord Derby in these words—"No reply received to urgent telegrams of September 16 and 19, sent 437 in the interest of humanity," and then referring to the reasons which had induced President Krüger to issue his Proclamation of annexation of Bechuanaland. These are the two telegrams to which my Question relates.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYI am very happy to give the right hon. Gentleman an abstract of the telegrams to which his Question refers. On the 6th of September we received at the Colonial Office a telegram from the State Secretary of the South African Republic, in which he said that their Commander, Joubert, had brought about peace on the Western Border, and that all parties had laid down their arms on the Transvaal Government taking them under their protection and jurisdiction. He said—
If Her Majesty's responsibility be handed over to us, effective measures will promptly be taken to restore and maintain permanent peace, subject to Her Majesty's approval, and the rights of all Native Chiefs being respected. Matter urgent.On the 8th of September the Secretary of State sent the contents of that telegram to Sir Hercules Robinson, and begged him to make his observations, in reply, by telegram. This was the first information we had of the action of the Transvaal Government on that Border. Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed back on the 9th of September, saying he was still without information from Mr. Rhodes as to his negotiations with Commander Joubert and Commander Nicholas Gey, and also as to the results of the meeting of Stellalanders which was to have taken place on the 5th, and he said—"As soon as I have ascertained the position in Bechuanaland I will telegraph my observation." On the 12th we had a long telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson, in which he gave an account of the state of affairs there from what he had gathered from Mr. Rhodes's Report, and concluded by saying—Mr. Rhodes is now on his way to Cape Town to place the whole position before me. He will arrive on Sunday. Meanwhile, I would suggest that your answer to the Pretoria telegram should be delayed.That was on the 12th. On the 17th of September the State Secretary of the South African Republic telegraphed to the Colonial Office—"Being implored by Montsioa, the Government have taken him under their protection." We 438 then telegraphed on the 21st to Sir Hercules Robinson, saying—Having carefully considered his communications on this subject, Her Majesty's Government considered it desirable that they should have a clear expression of the Cape Minister's recommendation, and should understand, before coming to a decision in the matter, as to the extent of co-operation to be given to the Colony on account of the trade route and otherwise if active measures are taken.Then Sir Hercules Robinson sent on the 24th of September a reply to that, conveying the opinions and the Minutes of the Cape Ministry. On the 7th of October the Cabinet, having come to a decision, sent an answer first of all to the South African Republic, saying—"You will receive a communication from the High Commissioner;" and on the same day telegraphing to the High Commissioner, saying that the Government desired him, on receiving the concurrence of his Ministry, to call upon the Government of the South African Republic to disallow the recent Acts by which the South African Republic assumed jurisdiction over Montsioa and the violation of the Convention of 1884, and asking him to advise as to the means to be taken to maintain the Protectorate. This is the tenour of the telegrams that passed between the Government and the South African Republic. With reference to the answer which I gave the other day, the House will allow me to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that I was in error in saying, in answer to a Question whether we received any other official communication about Mr. Bethell's mode of death, that none had been received except the document I referred to as having been received last Thursday. I was correct in my memory in saying that we had received no communication except from Mr. Wright; but it appears, on looking at the Papers carefully, that a few days previously, on the 15th of October, we had received a document from Sir Hercules Robinson, forwarding a long document from Mr. Wright, giving a statement of a long series of outrages that had been committed on Montsioa by the freebooters. In the eighth paragraph of that Report the names of the murderers of Mr. Bethell were given; but we did not act on it for this reason, because in the covering despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson, which arrived the same day, he said— 439I have forwarded a copy of your Lordship's despatch to Mr. Wright, and asking for a full account of the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Bethell;so we were waiting until the answer came from Mr. Wright to the despatch, and that arrived only on Thursday.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI have to thank my hon. Friend for his explanation. I think he also must have received a despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson containing Mr. Bower's despatch to him. I wish to ask whether the despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson on the 24th of September, I think it was, to which that answer was given on the 7th of October, came by telegraph or post?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYIt came by telegraph. It was received on the 24th of September. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman says about Commander Bower's Report, I have to say that his Report was received by us on the 15th of October, forwarded by Sir Hercules Robinson. What I want to point out to my right hon. Friend is that Mr. Bower's Report merely gave a general account of the murder of Mr. Bethell, and did not give us what is an important matter—namely, the fact that the names of the murderers were known, and that there was an eye-witness who could depose to the identity of the criminals.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHWith reference to the answer of the hon. Gentleman, I should like to ask whether I am right in understanding that the despatch sent to Sir Hercules Robinson by Her Majesty's Government on the 21st of September is to be taken as having intimated that the Government were not prepared to carry out their direct engagements to those Bechuana Chiefs whom they had undertaken to protect, and to repudiate this Proclamation of the Transvaal, unless they received the co-operation of the Cape Government?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYNo, Sir; I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make any inference of that sort. If he recalls what took place last year, or in the early part of this year, between Sir Thomas Scanlen and the delegates of the Transvaal, he will recollect that it was pointed out that Her Majesty's Government would take a very different view of what the ultimate settlement of 440 Bechuanaland might be according as the Cape Government made it a point that the trade route should be kept open or not. Accordingly, if the Cape Government made it an important point, as they did, that the trade route was to be kept open, a much larger measure of extension of jurisdiction would have to be taken than if merely the interests of Montsioa and Mankoroane were to be considered; but if the Cape Government desired to have measures taken in order to save the trade route, it was right that they should also take part of the responsibility and expense.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI observe that my hon. Friend is quoting from the late despatches. I beg to ask him, as they are printed, how soon they can be in the hands of Members? It is impossible to exaggerate the inconvenience in which the House is placed by the fact that the most important Papers are, although printed, not in our hands. Can we be informed when they will be in the possession of Members? I also wish to ask whether pressure could not be put on the printers to take on extra workpeople in such a case as this? The House and the Government are immensely inconvenienced, and probably a great deal of time will be lost in debate, in consequence of no one being able really to go into the question as it ought to be gone into.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYConsidering who it is who asks me the Question, I cannot resist the temptation to give the answer which came to me from the printers, that they employed a large number of women and children in the work, and that they were checked by the operation of the Factory Acts. I can only say that I have done my best to press the printing forward; but I must, at the same time, point out that the difficulties are great when you carry the Papers down to the last day. The last despatch only came to the Colonial Office on Thursday, and I hope the Papers will be in the hands of Members on Friday or Saturday morning.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI wish to ask my hon. Friend whether, on receiving this information with regard to the Factory Acts, he did not state to the printers that in a matter of this kind they ought to employ extra men, so as to get the work done more rapidly. If the bargain which the country has made 441 does not yield a price sufficient for that purpose, surely it is a case in which we might fairly say another bargain should be made. The time of the House is wasted, the Government is inconvenienced, the question comes badly before the public, and the public interest is injured simply because by our bargain with the printers we are unable to get done what any private firm would undertake to do.