HC Deb 18 February 1887 vol 311 cc87-106
DR. CLARK (Caithness)

, who had an Amendment on the Paper in the following terms:— And humbly to represent to Your Majesty the desirability of reconsidering the proposed arrangement in Zululand with a view of pre- venting an important section of the Zulu people being separated from their own nation, said: Since the House met last Session a new policy has been determined upon by Her Majesty's Government in regard to South Africa.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,


I was about to say that the new policy of Her Majesty's Government has caused considerable discussion in South Africa, and I believe that one result of that policy is that the Natal Executive Council has strongly opposed the settlement proposed by the Government, and has even gone so far as to petition Her Majesty to remove the Governor who made it. We have been presented with a Blue Book on South African affairs; but the last despatch contained in that Blue Book is dated July in last year, so that this House has had no means of arriving at a conclusion as to the wisdom of the policy carried out in South Africa, especially with regard to the Zulus. Now, Sir, the Zulus are a brave and chivalrous race that I have taken an interest in for many years; they are the finest of the Basutu races; but our policy towards them has been a sad one, and many crimes have been committed against them by both the Liberal and Conservative Governments. The Conservative Government is to blame, or rather is responsible, for the initial crime—for the unwarrantable invasion of Zululand, and the unnecessary and unjustifiable Zulu War of 1879. I say they were responsible, although it is well known they were not in favour of the war. It was forced on by one man— Sir Bartle Frere. I do not desire to make this a Party question, or I would require to denounce, or deplore, the want of moral courage which the Liberal Government afterwards displayed — their cowardly indecision; their mean attempt to evade the responsibility that had been incurred; and their miserable half-hearted settlement of sending Cetewayo back with his hands tied—a condition of things that necessarily meant failure. I have no desire to blame either Party; but I think I ought to say this—that for every Zulu killed in the war of 1879 there have been 10 killed since by war and famine, because we have refused to interfere. It is well known that after the war of 1879 we divided Zululand into 16 Kingdoms, about one-fourth of the entire country being set aside as a Reserve. For several years civil war and anarchy prevailed. When the late Liberal Government attempted a settlement by sending Cetewayo back they sent him back so trammelled by conditions that it was utterly impossible for him to govern the land. He was soon driven out; he became a wanderer, and died either of a broken heart, or committed suicide in the bush. The Zulus were compelled to enter into negotiations with the Boers on the Border. These negotiations were entered into by Cetewayo's Prime Minister and son. They offered terms to the Dutch Boers for their assistance in putting down the rebels who had driven them out of their territory. the Boers gladly went to their aid, but before they could arrive Cetewayo was dead. Terms were soon arrived at between Cetewayo's son and brother and a number of their Dutch defenders, who were able to drive the invaders out of Zululand, and who entered into a Treaty by which they received a large portion of Zululand for the services they had rendered. Now, the Zulus and similar races have no idea of magnitude and value; and it is certain that, although a large territory was ceded, the Zulus did not fully understand what they were doing. I may mention an instance that occurred on one occasion to myself. I obtained some milk from a Native, and I offered him half-a-dozen matches or a shilling. He chose the matches in preference to the shilling. There has now been a new Republic established in Zulu-land, and the original settlers have sold their farms. Now, I think that the policy of allowing the White man to interfere in Native quarrels in South Africa is a very bad one; and I hope the Colonial Government, no matter which side of the House may be in power, will determine on some fixed policy for the future, by which they will be able to prevent the condition of things that has been experienced in Zululand arising elsewhere. The only way, I believe, in which this can be done is by refusing to recognize any grants made by the Native Chiefs or Kings to White adventurers. I do not intend to dispute the conditions laid down by the late Secretary for the Colonies. On the whole, they were probably as satisfactory as could be arranged; but I maintain that the present settlement does not carry out all the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). We have allowed a large number of White men to settle in Zululand, and it is necessary, doubtless, to recognize the present position of things as accomplished facts. Had the Government merely made an arrangement recognizing those facts, and providing that the land given to the White people should be held by them, the rest of the country being retained by the Zulu people, I should not have brought the subject before the House. But my objection is this—that land that was never asked for by the Boers; land where the Boers had never been; land which has always been in the possession of the Natives, has been enclosed within the new Republic; and that a portion of the territory, on which farms have been established and which the farmers are to keep, has been placed in what is now to be called Eastern Zululand. If any class of men have a right to be considered it is the Zulus, and especially the brother of Cetewayo, who, during the Zulu War, assisted us and fought on our side. Yet now we are assisting to drive him and his people away from Zululand, or to leave him at the mercy of this now Republic. The Boers, so far as the North-East of Zululand is concerned, are not there; and consequently the result of the new Treaty is to separate the Zulu people into two districts—one being Eastern Zululand and the other the new Republic. As a matter of fact, Zululand has been divided, as this House is divided with a central portion between the two ranges of Benches. Upon one portion there are about 80 farmers, and by the new Treaty the Dutch farmers are to remain there, so that, as a matter of fact, we have in Eastern Zululand some 80 farms and 400 people with which it is proposed to begin as a new State for the coloured population. I want to know from the Government on what ground they are taking away land of this kind and placing White men upon it, and why this portion of Zululand, which the Boers never asked for, has been given to them? It is stated that necessity of securing a trade route is the reason of the new arrangement. But what is the value of a trade with 50,000 or 60,000 Zulus who are not in the habit of wear- ing clothes? Zululand is bounded by the Transvaal and the Portuguese Dominions, and there is no trade with the interior except through the one or the other, so that the trade with Zululand is of so little value that it cannot be worth considering. And, moreover, under the existing Convention we have every condition necessary for carrying on trade with the different territories freely and safely. We have a right to open up roads throughout the entire territory, and we have a right to have our waggons and goods carried through without any transit duties. The Republic has adopted the principle of Free Trade; the roads are to be kept open, and no Customs duty is charged upon any produce passing through the country, so that everything that could be got from the standpoint of trade exists already. I do not say that we are to recede from the Treaty which hag been entered into; but I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider the matter a little more before the Government finally adopt the Convention. This, after all, is only a preliminary Treaty, and it may be possible to get back for the Zulus a portion of the land of which they have been deprived. I do not see how the matter can be affected by any question of trade. It may be possible to give to the White farmers all the land they have occupied, and allow the Natives to keep the land they have at present. This would enable the Zulus to continue possession of land that is much more valuable to them than land nearer the coast. It may be said that it is not wise to bring the Boers nearer the coast; but it only amounts to a question of about 10 miles either one way or the other. Then there is the condition of Swaziland. Swaziland is intimately connected with Zululand. The Swazies are Zulus, and in whatever way you solve the Zululand question you must sole the Swaziland question. Swaziland is now in a condition of anarchy. There is a very curious condition of things established there. You have a King who has granted concessions for money and liquor to Englishmen and Dutchmen. A roaring trade in liquor appears to be carried on there. There is no licence or duty required to be paid; there is no tax of any kind, and ardent spirits are introduced and sold by the Natives at 6d. a bottle; so that drunkenness has become very common. The King has already made large concessions of mineral rights to Englishmen, and of grazing rights to the Dutch farmers. I understand that about one-half or two-thirds of Swaziland has been given away to English and Dutch adventurers. I am told that a somewhat favourite method of dealing with the Natives is to put down the figure nine, and then to add another nine after it, making 99. I hope to hear from the Government whether they have any definite policy with respect to Swaziland and to the general question of South Africa, and on what lines they intend to go until the new conditions have been developed? The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that we have now got gold fields in the Reserve. There are gold fields also in Swaziland and in North Bechuanaland. The question to be considered is whether you intend to have a state of anarchy before you take steps to produce order, or whether you will take time by the forelock and arrange as to the conditions on which the Natives and Whites may live and develop South Africa? The condition of things in the Reserve at the present time is not very creditable to us. Some time ago a vagabond Boer shot Dabulamanzi — Cetewayo's brother, in the Reserve. Now, there is no law in the Reserve, and therefore the murderer cannot be tried in the Native Reserve, nor can he be tried outside the Reserve for anything that occurred within it, nor by the new Republic, and the result is that this gentleman is to this day walking about with a number of other murderers in Swaziland, and he cannot be touched. Something certainly must be done to put an end to the anarchy which now exists. I also strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of not only considering this question, but also the condition of other Native territories in South Africa. You have the Zulu Question, the Basuto Question, the Pondo Question, and the Northern Bechuanaland Question. All of them require settling, and, speaking from the reports and telegrams received from South Africa, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the telegrams which have appeared in The Times as to the treatment of the Zulus by Mr. Osborn can possibly give a true representation of the actual state of affairs? I cannot believe the statements which have been made, because I know that two-thirds of the news sent here is altogether untrue, and I am satisfied that the right lion. Gentleman would soon send Mr. Osborn about his business if he had done anything to justify the charges which have been made against him. I think it is high time for the Government to cease their present policy of doing things by halves in South Africa, and to resolve upon some definite course of action. They ought, as soon as possible, to come to some conclusion and determination upon their general policy which would prevent the Native tribes from falling into a state of anarchy. If a state of anarchy arises you will have expeditions such as that which you have had to Bechuanaland, costing you £1,000,000 or so, and involving an extra expenditure of £100,000 or so a-year. Perhaps the wisest course would be to send out a Commission to South Africa. I see in his place the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler), who has long been a friend of the Aborigines, and who knows something about South Africa, and also my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie), who also knows something about South Africa. Why not send out some gentleman of that kind to ask the Cape and Natal, and also the Boer Republic, to come to some general arrangement which might settle the question? At present you have Natal and the Cape Colony fighting each other by tariffs, and trying to steal the interior trade from each other. If Commissioners went out and obtained accurate information, instead of depending on Reports which are generally the reverse of truth, and doing in the future what we have done in the past, it would be possible to devise and adopt a more prudent policy than it is now. At the present moment, with the best possible intentions, we are simply destroying the nations we profess to serve. I do not intend to press the Resolution I have placed upon the Paper to a Division, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies to see that the policy of this country should not be allowed to press hardly, as I think it does, upon the Native tribes, and that we should not sacrifice the Natives for the benefit of the people of Natal or anybody else. We may, at least, secure to the Zulus the land which is now occupied by them, and upon which there are no White people.


I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has had an opportunity of bringing this important question before the House, and I listened with great interest to the speech which he made. Both he and I, in and out of this House, have considerable differences of opinion; but it was with much pleasure that I listened to his remarks on this occasion, because there was much in them with which I fully agree. As the hon. Member said, the history of our connection with Zululand is a very unfortunate history, and by one step after another we have reduced that country to a very sad state. The Zulus were a powerful people. We once thought them too powerful; but we have now brought them down to very great poverty. It appears from the Blue Book just delivered to hon. Members, in regard to the affairs of Zululand, that Sir Henry Bulwer was opposed to the policy which has resulted in the destruction of the Zulus. I should have liked, in speaking of this matter, to have done so in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who represented the Colonies in the last Parliament; but, unfortunately, he is not in his place. Lord Kimberley has been blamed for the course he took in regard to the restoration of Cetewayo, and it was strongly opposed by Sir Henry Bulwer. Certainly, it was not likely to be a successful policy when the persons who were to carry it out were strongly opposed to each other. In an interesting and able document at the commencement of the Blue Book we have the views of Sir Henry Bulwer, and I think that Memorandum fully justifies the remarks I have ventured to make in former debates. I know it may be said that it turned out that the restoration of King Cetewayo was an error; but I lay no blame upon Lord Kimberley for that. I myself headed a deputation to the noble Lord, the object of which was to recommend him to take that course which afterwards turned out to be a mistake. At the same time, the evil results of the restoration were in part due to causes that might have been avoided. One of the causes of that mistake is, I think, clearly shown in the Book now before us. There is another despatch contained in it, at page 36, from Lord Granville to Sir Arthur Havelock, which I look upon as a most admirable despatch. There are other Members in this House besides myself who take a large interest in South Africa, and who are anxious to hear the views of my right hon. Friend who now represents the Colonies in this House. One satisfactory result of recent political changes is that the Colonies are now represented in this House by a statesman of Colonial experience and sympathies, and knowing more of Colonial matters than any of his Predecessors. We all recognize my right hon. Friend as a great authority on all Colonial questions in this House—altogether unlike the generality of Ministers, who are too frequently pitchforked into Offices for which they have no capacity. My right hon. Friend has gone to the Colonial Office with a thorough knowledge of everything concerning the Colonies; and I therefore congratulate him as well as the House and the country upon his appointment, and upon the fact that so important a position has been filled by a Minister so admirably qualified for it. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give to the important questions of South Africa that attention which they eminently deserve. Our present difficulties are due to the fact that, at the close of the Zulu War, we shrank from the responsibility of taking the country, and making ourselves responsible for the government of it. Successive Governments shrank, the House shrank, and the country generally shrank, from annexing Zululand. I believe that after the Zulu War there was but one course left for us, and that was to take the country. We have incurred great responsibilities to that country, and we ought to meet them directly, and undertake the government of it. The hon. Member opposite has mentioned the circumstances of the murder of Dabulamanzi, a distinguished Zulu Chief, brother of King Cetewayo; and yet the fact that no one has been tried for that murder is a forcible instance of the anarchy which now prevails. We were unwilling to take the course of annexing the country; but, seeing the close connection which England has had with the history of Zululand, I think the best course for the Government of this country to have taken would have been to make ourselves directly responsible for the government of Zululand. We see now that a number of English and Dutch farmers are seizing the land from the unfortunate Zulus. That is a condition from which we ought to endeavour to protect them; and the only way in which we can do that is to take over the country, and take a more direct share in the responsibilities of governing it.

MR. O. V. MORGAN (Battersea)

I am sure that we are all agreed—at least, all of those who know anything of South Africa—that it would have been much better, after we defeated the Zulus, if we had annexed the country. We made a great mistake in breaking up the power of the Zulus, because the Zulus were never hostile to us; and if they had desired to go to war with any White people, it would certainly not have been with the English. Those days, however, have now passed, and we find ourselves in our present difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) told us that we have reduced the Zulu people to some 6,000 or 8,000, whereas in former times they could muster 40,000 fighting men. I believe that if we rule the Zulus fairly, and give them sufficient land, they will rapidly increase in numbers—much more rapidly than White people. In point of fact, they double their population every 25 or 30 years. All I would recommend is this. It is most desirable that we should, as far as possible, come to a common understanding with the Presidents of the Orange Free State and the South African Republics. It is to be regretted that the Boer population hold views different from those of Englishmen—that they will not admit the equality of Black men before the law, and, as a rule, are not willing to grant the same measure of justice to the Blacks that the English people are. There is no chance of dealing fairly well with them unless we can come to a common understanding with the two Republics. It is also desirable to enter into a Customs union with the Dutch Republics. I believe that if we could enter into some such arrangement it would result in a much better feeling than exists at the present day between the English and Dutch Colonists. At present the Cape Colony and Natal are cutting each other's throats. I would, therefore, implore the right hon. Gen- tleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to use his influence in persuading the Ministry of Cape Colony, and the Governor and Council of Natal, to enter into some Customs Union between themselves and the Dutch States. By a Customs arrangement such as now exists between the States which form the German Empire, I believe it would be possible to produce a better feeling than that which now exists between the English in Cape Colony and the Dutch in the two Republics.

SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)

A short time ago I heard the late Secretary of the Colonies express his regret that it was impossible for this country to remedy the unfortunate state of affairs in Zululand. Now, I do not believe that it is too late. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the Zulu War was begun by the Party who are now in power; but it was continued by the weakness and vacillation of a Liberal Government. In 1884, I headed a deputation to a Liberal Government, represented in the person of Lord Derby, and I spoke in favour of the Zulus. I told his Lordship then that in the opinion of a large number of persons connected with South Africa, who were well acquainted with the policy which had been pursued in that country, we had broken up the Zulu Government, their military system, their social order, and their nationality; that the Zulus were our friends; that they had ever been our allies; and that we had been a cruel and unjust nation in our dealings with them. I urged upon Her Majesty's Government in the most earnest terms I could employ for the sake of the Zulus, for the credit and honour of this country, for the time that was coming, and for the sake of future peace in South Africa itself, to take the Zulus immediately under the protection of Great Britain. I remember, after the battle of Ulundi, the Kaffirs coming to our soldiers with assegais in their hands, and shields on their backs, to ask who was to rule them, and what chief they must look to for guidance and protection. Never, on any occasion since the battle of Ulundi, has a Zulu touched a British subject. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has said, the gallant Zulu people have been crushed by cruelty and by famine almost out of existence, and now we complacently rob them of their land, banish them from their homes, and relegate them to a Reserve, in which—although we claim to possess an authority —there is no law. In Natal itself, to which the Zulus fled long ago from Cetewayo's dominion, they find themselves crushed, and are largely diminishing in number, without the prospect— which they ought to have, of returning back to their native land. It is a singular thing that in March last 42 Members of this House presented a strong remonstrance to Lord Granville against the deplorable condition of things then existing in Zululand being allowed to continue. The Address presented to the noble Lord was signed by sympathizers with the Zulu people on both sides of the House, Liberals and Tories joining together in formulating the document, which concluded by expressing— The hope that your Lordship will he pleased to take immediate steps to place the Zulus under British protection, which, we believe, they will welcome. It is a singular fact that only a month or two before Sir Henry Bulwer had written these words in January, 1886— The outlet for the Native question of Natal lies in Zululand; and I will go further, and say that the outlet for every Native question in that part of South Africa lies through Zululand and the Native territories that adjoin it to the vast African Continent beyond the region of European occupation, that way lies a golden bridge for the Native questions of the future. But let that outlet be closed, let that golden bridge be destroyed, and there will remain pent up within our limits, unable to escape, the elements of burning questions which for want of their natural outlet, must some day be kindled into flames in our very midst. Sir Henry Bulwer, one of the most distinguished men ever sent to South Africa, persistently but fruitlessly urged upon the late Government to take the charge of this Zulu question into their own hands, and to protect one of the most gallant races that ever lived, against the inroads of the Boers who were going into their country under false pretences. In the month of March a deputation of messengers from Umyamana, Ndabuko and Dinuzulu, and the headmen of the Zulu people on the Reserve, made a statement and presented a petition to the Judge of the Native High Court, in which they made an earnest request to the Government to be taken under British protection. What did they say— we ask that this son of his (Cetewayo's) may be ruled by Her Majesty, and taken under her wing as she did his father before him, that he may be raised by her and guided by her, that he may govern the land that she gave to his father. That he may be appointed under the same laws as those with which his father was returned, and by which he was guided. We ask that the Boers may be removed from, and go out of, our country; we cannot look at one another; we cannot live in peace with them. We wish to return to our own people—the British—and to live under the Queen who has always ruled over us. The heads of the Zulu people have sent us to do homage for them, and to await the reply of the Government, whether it be that we are to be left to die, or whether it be that we are to be succoured from this our great trouble that is destroying us. That was about the hundredth petition which the Zulus have presented; it was delivered in person, and it met with no response. We talk of sympathizing with the Bulgarians, and we have heard a great deal of recrimination upon a subject which certainly does not affect the honour of this country as much as the cruel war waged against the Zulu people, our wicked neglect of them, and our indisposition to protect them against the unjust and unmanly treatment they are receiving at the hands of the Boers. The Boers have taken from them the land which was reserved for them and employed it as pasturage for themselves. An arbitration was appointed, and the decision was against the possession of this land by the Boers; but we failed to protect them against the annexation of their territory by the Boers. Moreover, we assisted in the destruction of Seccoconi. Our conduct was not only unjust but illogical, and everywhere we displayed the most cruel neglect of those we were bound to protect. I protest against our unmanly treatment of the Zulu people, and I trust that for the honour of this country something may yet be done to release us of the painful position in which we are now involved. I hope that the Queen's Government will see to it, and some better arrangement is made than now prevails, and so remove the stigma which is now cast upon us. Although Sir Henry Bulwer told us in one of his despatches the other day that we have gone past the time when the evil can be remedied—that, in fact, we are two years beyond the time when it is possible to do anything; I trust to hear from the Secretary of State for the Colonies something that will be distinctly for the advantage of the Native tribes in South Africa, or I am afraid that before long we may witness a blaze such as we have never seen before, which may involve this country in dishonour and disgrace.


I have listened, I need hardly say, with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark); for if there is one man in this House who understands the question, from personal knowledge of the country, and of the different tribes, it is the hon. Member, and therefore we naturally pay great attention to anything that falls from him. I cannot help expressing my regret that he has chosen this time to bring forward this Motion; for, although I have done my best to get the Papers before the House, we have been able only to present Papers which really do not deal with the questions which have been brought forward by the hon. Member this evening. Therefore, we are in some difficulty, because hon. Members are not acquainted with the actual state of facts; and, on the other hand, I am rather afraid of giving too many details on the subject. It is not my business, or desire to go into many of the questions touched upon to-night. Many hon. Members know that, as far as I am concerned, I opposed, and with my hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), voted against the Conservative Government of the day upon the Zulu War. I have always been of opinion that that war was a most unjust war, and I hold that opinion now strengthened as it is by the results. Nor is it my business to contend against the policy of the late Liberal Government, which I consistently and most persistently attacked, almost to weariness, in this House. I disagreed with the return of Cetewayo to Zululand; for I believed he would not return in a position to hold his own against the intrigues which were certain to spring up against him or against the bad counsel of his family. That opinion also proved to be correct. I pass on to the beginning of 1886, when the Memorandum was written by Sir Henry Bulwer, to whose merits only a just tribute has been paid. Now, the position of affairs is very clearly stated in that Memorandum. Sir Henry Bulwer shows that, after the death of Cetewayo, the Boers were invited in to assist the Zulus. Thereupon an arrangement was made between the Boers and the Zulus, of a nature which everyone might expect, with Boers on one side and ignorant Zulus on the other. It was very much in favour of the Boers. The Zulus agreed to give to the Boers land equal to 2,700,000 acres, about half of Zululand; at the same time giving them the right to establish an independent Republic, and placing themselves under the supervision and subject to the control of the new Republic. That arrangement Sir Henry Bulwer justly characterizes as disastrous. Under the circumstances, we had, however, no right to ignore that arrangement, and Sir Henry Bulwer advised that we should negotiate with the Boers. Lord Granville, in a despatch of March 11, 1886, instructed Sir Arthur Havelock to open negotiations with the Boers, and Sir Arthur Havelock acted on these instructions. I may quote a part of the despatch that bears on the position of the Zulus, which is important, since we have heard so much of the Zulus protesting and being much injured by the result of the arrangement which we have concluded with the Boers. Let us, therefore, see what was the condition of the Zulus when Sir Arthur Havelock began the negotiations. At page 50 he says— It is clear that the power of the Zulus is utterly broken. They have neither the heart, nor the strength to resist the Boers. Unless they receive support from Her Majesty's Government, they must eventually submit to any terms the Boers may think fit to impose. That shows that our intervention at this time was nothing short of the salvation of the Zulus, who would certainly have fallen a very easy prey to the Boers if we had not intervened. That action was approved by Lord Granville, and subsequently by my right hon. Friend my Predecessor at the Colonial Office (Mr. E. Stanhope): and Sir Arthur Havelock was requested to use every effort to settle the question before further difficulties and dangers should arise. I am not now going further into the negotiations, which are described in a despatch that will appear in the Papers which I will present at the earliest opportunity; but on the 22nd of October an agreement was signed by the Repre- sentatives of the new Republic, by which the Protectorate over Zululand was abandoned by the Boers, and a new line of demarcation was settled. With respect to that line of demarcation the hon. Member for Caithness finds a good deal of fault, and I admit, at once, that there were great difficulties in regard to that line; and, if it could be done, I should be very glad to see those difficulties removed. They arise from the circumstance that, on the eastern side of the new line of demarcation, there are some 80 farms, held by some 200 or 300 Boers, and those farms are in Eastern Zululaud, and under the protection of British authority; and I fear, as the hon. Member fears, that those difficulties which are apt to arise between the Boers and the Natives may occur. But, with the leave of the House, I will read what, of course, the hon. Member has not yet had an opportunity of seeing—a passage from the despatch of Sir Arthur Havelock, dated October 24th, 1886, in which he states the terms of the arrangement come to and describes the negotiations. He says— I do not consider the line of demarcation established under the terms of settlement to be satisfactory in all particulars; but I feel confident that, had I insisted on a line more favourable to the interests, and more in accordance with the wishes of the Zulus, I should have risked a complete failure of the negotiations; and I think it will be found that he was right in that. With regard to the trade route, to which great importance was attached, Sir Arthur Havelock was unable to bring the line of demarcation more to the east, and an exchange of territory was made to the north of Zululand. He goes on to say— The concession to the Boers of the portion of the country between the northern border of Zululand and the Mkusi River will tend to make more complete than it already is the isolation of Swaziland with regard to Zululand. Here I agree with the hon. Member in his observation as to the importance of keeping up our communication with Swaziland, and not to have the Boers coming in between us and that country. The despatch continues— I have sought to minimize this defect by making it a condition that a free right of passage from Mkusi to and across the Pongolo should be reserved for all persons of all nationalities without let or hindrance, and without payment of tolls or licence. Under the terms of settlement the Zulus will retain fully half the area of Zululand outside the Reserve territory, and this half includes nearly the whole of that portion of the country lying between the White and Black Umfolosi, described as 'the cradle of the Zulu nation,' in which are situated Ulundi, the sites of the Royal residence and of the Royal burial places, and the kraals in which Dinizulu Umyamyana and the principal chiefs now reside. Therefore, it is evident, from what has been stated, that, so far as the Zulus are concerned, they have not suffered under this agreement when you compare it with the state of things that existed under the arrangement with the Boers made in 1884. In a despatch from my right hon. Friend to Sir Arthur Havelock, dated November 2nd, 1886, it is said— Referring to your telegram of October 22, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the agreement signed by you with the Leaders of the Boers, and you have authority to appoint Boundary Commissioners. They will be prepared to recommend to Her Majesty the assumption of British protection over Eastern Zululand, with the consent of the Zulus. The provisions of the Convention will have to be carefully considered, and provision made for giving free passage to traders. Having run thus briefly through the negotiations and the arrangement that has been come to, I may mention two points in connection with the agreement. There is no doubt that the Zulu Chiefs have protested against this agreement; but their position has been materially and substantially improved by this arrangement, as compared with their desperate condition in the beginning of 1886, which Sir Arthur Havelock called a state of collapse. But it is incorrect to say that the Zulus were taken by surprise. Sir Arthur Havelock, in a despatch, shows that in March, in April, and in May, on several occasions, the Zulu Chiefs were told, in reply to their request, exactly what could and what could not be done for them; and he said to the last deputation of Zulus, who found themselves in difficulties and asked Her Majesty's Government to intervene on their behalf, that the Government were willing to help them; that they could not get for them all, or nearly all they wanted, but that the Government would try and get them something. The Chiefs, after that interview, thanked Sir Arthur Havelock for his reply to them, and therefore it is inaccurate to say that they have been taken by surprise, and it is equally incorrect to say that they were not heard against the arrangement. They had interviews with the Secretary of Native Affairs in October, and interviews with Sir Arthur Havelock in November. Now that they have been told, and understand, that this agreement is final, and that British protection will be extended over Eastern Zululand, the principal Chiefs have expressed their approval of the arrangement; and I would urge on many persons, not only in this country, but in Natal, that the real friends of the Zulus are those who will now encourage them in that course, and not strive to keep up in them a spirit of discontent with the arrangement made. Every one of us would be glad to be able to do more for the Zulus; but it must be remembered that they themselves first placed us in a difficulty by inviting the Boers into Zululand. The Government are bound to the new Republic by the engagement they have made, and they cannot now recede from it. If, on any smaller points, a further arrangement can be made, with the consent of the new Republic, that would tend to remove difficulties or complications in the future, the Government would be only too glad to take that step. The second point I have partly dealt with already—namely, that connected with the trade route and the necessity of dealing with some 200 or 300 Boers and about 80 farms in Eastern Zululand. The compromise come to on that matter may not be altogether as satisfactory as could be desired; but it certainly was not effected without considerable difficulty. As Sir Arthur Havelock has pointed out, if he had insisted upon another line, there would have been probably a complete failure of the negotiations. What will be the position of the Boers in Eastern Zululand? They will possess the ordinary rights of ownership of the lands granted them; they will have no jurisdiction over the Natives; and they will be entitled under the agreement to be secured in those lands. I have been asked—but I regret that I must disappoint the House in this particular—what is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect, not only to Zululand, but to Bechuanaland and to Swaziland, although the hon. Member's Amendment is in terms confined to Zululand. I am free to admit that I think, speaking generally, that the time has arrived for a comprehen- sive scheme for the settlement of the South African difficulties and complications. I am free to admit that, unless some such comprehensive scheme is settled, those dangers and difficulties which were pointed out by the hon. Member for Caithness may be anticipated. As regards Eastern Zululand, the Government are not prepared, as at present advised, to entertain the proposal made that Eastern Zululand should be annexed to Natal. There is no evidence, in the first place, that the Zulus desire annexation to Natal; and I think there is a very considerable, and very grave doubt how far the Natal laws and administration would be suited to Eastern Zululand. The finances of Natal, moreover, are in an unsatisfactory state, and are quite unable to bear the cost of establishing and maintaining Civil Establishments in a new and widely-extending territory; and, therefore, it is not intended, for the present at all events, that Eastern Zululand should be annexed to Natal. Then comes the question as to the government of Eastern Zululand. I can assure hon. Members that the subject is receiving very careful consideration at the hands of the Government. I think hon. Members who have studied the question will agree that the limited control at present exercised over the Reserve would not be sufficient in Eastern Zululand. We must have the power to establish Courts of Law, and to exercise a criminal jurisdiction, not only over Natives, but over British subjects and others within the territory. This we cannot at present do in the Reserve, and the question is now under consideration whether we can get sufficient powers under what is ordinarily recognized as a Protectorate, or whether we should have to annex Zululand at once. It has been suggested that we might bring Eastern Zululand under the control of the Governor of Natal, much in the same way as Bechuanaland is under the control of the Governor of Cape Colony; so as to legislate by Proclamation. I have mentioned those points in order to show that the matter is receiving careful consideration, but that the difficulties are very great. I will, of course, pay attention to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Caithness, with the object of seeing whether some kind of satisfactory arrangement could be made by which the different rights of different countries would be settled once for all in South Africa. It is a very tempting scheme; but when such schemes come to be looked into, they are found to be more difficult than appeared at first sight. I hope I have shown two things to hon. Members—first, that this arrangement which has been so much cavilled at by the friends of the Zulus is an arrangement really calculated to benefit them, and to put them in a far better position than they were in at the beginning of 1886; and, secondly, that the questions connected not only with Zululand, but with other territories in South Africa, are receiving, and will receive, the careful consideration of the Government.