§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What course the Government intended to take with regard to the New Hebrides? He presumed the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to state that Her Majesty's Government intended to take a firm and determined course with regard to this most important question.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE) (Aberdeen, S.)Sir, the question of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite comes upon me rather as a surprise. I received no intimation from him that he was going to bring before the House this delicate matter; and, although I fully admit that on the Appropriation Bill he is entitled to raise a question of this kind, still I think he must feel that it would have been more satisfactory to the House if he had informed me of his intention to raise it, so that I might be in a better position to deal with topics of a gravity and a delicacy which he will be the first to recognize. As regards the facts, I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the House on two occasions last week. Her Majesty's Government have nothing to con- 64 ceal in the matter. We have frankly and fully given to the House all the information we possessed on the subject. We lost no time, as soon as the question arose, in communicating with the French Government on the subject—not only through our own Ambassador in Paris, but with the French Ambassador here; and we addressed certain inquiries which were answered by the French Government, as far as the information in its possession at the time went, with perfect candour and without any delay. There were certain other points, not within the knowledge of the French Government, in regard to which they have promised to make inquiries. As far as the matter has gone, we have no reason to complain of the attitude, conduct, and language of the French Government. It has been candid and straightforward. They have admitted to the full the engagements which they entered into in 1878—I think—and which they repeated in 1883. They have admitted that they are bound by these engagements; and no difference of opinion has disclosed itself between them and ourselves as to the binding nature of those engagements. In that state of facts, I do not really see what more I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend or the House. The attitude of France is clear in the matter. Her Government gave no instructions which would have warranted the acts which have been repotted, and they assure us that if the French flag has been hoisted this has been done without any instructions, and shall not be continued. That is their unequivocal answer to us, and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government itself has been equally clear and distinct. We consider the engagement of 1878 to be binding, and we have no idea of its being departed from. We are very sensible of the feeling of the Australian Colonists—to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. We are aware that public opinion there is excited upon this matter. We are aware of the interest they have in it; we fully appreciate the strong objection they entertain to the creation of convict settlements in any new part of the Western Pacific; and the House may be perfectly certain that their feelings in that matter are so fully entered into by Her Majesty's Government that all proper weight has been given, and will continue to be given, to the senti- 65 ments of the Australian Colonists. I feel, Sir, that in this state of the facts there is really nothing further for me to say to the House. We have concealed nothing from it; and I think the House may rest assured that the matter is not only receiving all the attention which the Colonists could wish, but that it will be dealt with in a spirit at once firm and conciliatory, a spirit equally satisfactory to the people of England and the people of Australia.
§ MR. BOURKE (Lynn Regis)I am not surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend has brought forward this question, because it is one on which, no doubt, the Colonists and the people of this country feel most deeply. But, having said what he has said, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend may be satisfied with the reply of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In fact, I do not think there is any difference whatever between the two sides of the House upon this question. Both sides of the House recognize to the fullest extent the importance of the question; both sides have recognized to the fullest extent the interest which the Colonists take in it; and both sides recognize that the French Government, under the circumstances, have done all that they could be called upon to do. At the same time, there are questions which have been left in abeyance, and upon which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said the present Government are still making inquiries. Of course, we shall in future make further inquiries of the Government with regard to these questions. I think I may say also that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Rosebery), as far as I have been able to ascertain, has used language quite worthy of the dignity of this country.