CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

HC Deb 06 September 1887 vol 320 cc1404-54

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £14,416, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under ' The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

In order to get some information, I intend to move the reduction of the Vote by several items which it includes. I shall first move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the amount under Sub-Head A for half charge for the steamer on the West Coast of Africa, because it is the only way in which we can get to know what is going on in that part of the world. I want some information as to the nature of our proceedings on the West Coast of Africa. We have had a number of Blue Books which, in one sense, give too much information, and in another sense too little; but it is rather hard to get at the true gist of our proceedings in Africa. We have had statements made in the press and by the Chamber of Commerce in London and elsewhere, complaining very much that we do not annex the interior districts of Africa, or bring them under control so that our trade there may be extended. It is noticeable that those who impress on Her Majesty's Government the necessity of undertaking this work, do so, not so much for the purpose of keeping alive the Natives as for the purpose of trading with them. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have been strongly pressed to establish dominion on the West Coast of Africa. I should like to know what operations are in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government, and whether they have in view the protection of the lives of the Natives or the promotion of trade by bringing under control large tracts in the interior of Africa. I should, also, like to be told something of the position of the Royal Niger Company to which a charter has been granted for the purpose of enabling them to establish large dominions in the interior of the Continent. I know it would be out of Order to go into this subject in detail; but the Vote being for the West African Steamer, I think we may ask to be told, in the fewest possible words, whether we are establishing dominions in Africa by means of a Chartered Company or otherwise?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A — West Coast of Africa Steamer—be reduced by the sum of £1,500."—(Sir George Campbell.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) () Hampstead

I understand that the hon. Gentleman opposite has moved the reduction of this Vote, not as really desiring to reduce the charge on account of the West Coast Steamer, but simply for the purpose of raising the question of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in Africa. I am very glad to be able to give some comfort to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I, myself, although I think I should have heard of these rumours if there had been any foundation for them, have not heard anything of the kind, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government in the nature of extension of dominion on the West Coast of Africa. The Government sufficiently appreciate the responsibilities which this country has already undertaken in so many parts of the world and are not at all inclined to increase them. The only matter going on at Lagos now, which I hope will receive a peaceful and friendly termination, is a discussion as to the boundaries between some of the Native tribes, ourselves, and the French; but there is no reason to apprehend any serious difficulty on the point. With regard to the last question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I can only repeat that we have no intention of in any way extending our power on the West Coast of Africa.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

DR. TANNER: (Cork Co. Mid.)

I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000, being the amount charged in connection with the salary of the Governor of the Island of Heligoland and other matters. This Island seems to me a sort of bathing machine, situated in the Gorman Ocean; and it would be well if it were a bathing machine and nothing more. But it is more than that. It is understood by the German people merely as a menace to their trade and Mercantile Marine sailing out of the port of Hamburg. We have heard in past years that there was an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the belief that it would be desirable to conciliate Germany, to give up this island to the great country to whose shores it is contiguous. The Governor of the Island, whose name is O'Brien, states in the Report that the prosperity of the island is increasing, for the bathing season has been an exceptionally good one. But who is most interested in this Island; is it Great Britain or is it Germany? We are told in the Report that the majority of the visitors come from Hamburg and Bremen. The Government say that business men can run over from these places, and that the comparative success of the Island may be due to the completion of the railway to Cuxhaven. The Report, which is most amusing, is a curiosity in itself, and it tells us that the only event of political importance during the year was the visit paid to the island by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. On this occasion the Government House was repaired, and the furniture, which is more than 24 years old, has been re-covered—an example of economy to Her Majesty's Government. The Governor has been also obliged to supply glass, plate, and crockery, so that the post of this unfortunate gentleman is really no sinecure. I think if we look into these matters we shall see that, although the cost is not large, it would be well to cut it down still farther; and, having regard to the fact that the German people do not like the English occupation, I think it would be better if the island were once for all handed over to the Power off whose shores it lies. You tell us that the fishery is a success; but there is another point to which I wish to call attention. In dealing with the Postal Savings Banks, the Government tells us that it is very difficult to expect to get anything like progress out of Heligoland. The place does not appear to have been of any advantage whatever, and, moreover, England is placed in a false position by holding the Island. It is all very well to pass this Vote, as has been the case in years gone by; but I think that the time has come —seeing that you are asking the assistance and intervention of Germany in foreign affairs, and that you are constantly appealing to Germany as arbitrator in European matters when you want to secure a technical advantage— when you should give to Germany this little island. She wants to get it, and certainly I do not think that Great Britain cares very much about it. No one can land there; the island, as the Governor states, is merely a bathing place; you cannot get any shelter under the island, and therefore what is the use of keeping the cost of this small but typical White Elephant on the Estimates? I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will give us some explanation of the cause why Heligoland is still an appurtenance of the British Crown, otherwise I shall feel it my painful duty to divide the Committee against this Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C — Heligoland — be reduced by £1,000."—(Dr. Tanner.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)

The reason why this Vote is put upon the Estimates, and why we still hold Heligoland, is that this country is not prepared or desirous to part with it. I would remind the hon. Member that more than once the question of handing the island over to Germany has been raised in this House; and every time the hon. Member who made the proposal has met with a very decided rebuff. I must add that I have no information, and do not believe that Germany is very anxious to take Heligoland. I am not aware of any past negotiations or proposals for its surrender, at all events of any recent date. But without going into the question whether Heligoland is of use to the British Empire for defensive purposes, upon which, for reasons which the Committee will appreciate, it will not be desirable to enter, I must state that it is not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to part with Heligoland to Germany. I have some difficulty in dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, for the hon. Gentleman seemed to dislike the prosperity of what he called a mere bathing machine. I am glad to recognize that prosperity, and to be able to state that notwithstanding the small-ness of the Island and the shortness of the bathing season, there is a distinct and increasing improvement in tike financial condition of the Island. This year there is a decrease of £2,500 on the Vote of last year, and £800 of the amount now asked for is for the salary of the Governor, which is to be reduced when the present Governor leaves his post. Considering the importance of the place, it is not too much to ask the Imperial Government to pay £1,275. I really cannot assent to one of the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for handing over the Island to Germany—namely, because it is mainly kept up by people who cross over from Cuxhaven and Bremen to bathe. To sum up the matter, I may state that the Government are not prepared to hand Heligoland over to Germany, and that they have kept the expense to the Imperial taxpayer down to the very smallest amount. Great credit is due to the Governor for his care in closely watching the expenditure, and improving the resources of the Island.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I think the right hon. Baronet has proved too much in saying that we have reduced the expenditure on account of Heligoland. Last year we paid off an amount of original debt, and that is a fact which seems to me to emphasize the contention of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), that this is an unnecessary charge on the British taxpayer. I believe that on the whole face of the earth there is not a possession more absolutely useless to us than this Island; or an occupation more unjustifiable than the retention of Heligoland.

DR. TANNER

Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion. At the same time, I cannot help repeating the remark that this island is simply held as a threat and menace to a country which it is incumbent on us to treat in a fair, proper, and judicious manner.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

We have never received from Germany any complaint of that kind, and there is not the slightest foundation for such a statement.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I must now move the reduction under Sub-head M of £250, part of the salary of the Deputy Commissioner of New Guinea. With regard to the last reduction which I moved, I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was able to give me very satisfactory assurances. I am afraid, however, that with regard to the question which I now bring forward, it will not be in the right hon. Baronet's power to give assurances equally satisfactory. I have placed this Notice on the Paper in order to bring to the notice of the House the policy which is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in connection with Now Guinea. I am very much afraid that Her Majesty's Government have committed themselves to annex this enormous territory and hand it over to Queensland. That is a course which I very much object to— first, on the ground that it is an unjustifiable extension of the Empire; and, secondly, on the ground of risk and cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has told us how dangerous it will be to extend too rapidly our Empire, and go beyond our resources; and although I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has found occasion to make considerable exceptions to his rule, yet this proposal for extension has been steadily opposed by successive Governments. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, I know, disputes the fact that the British Settlements Bill which has been put before the House is really one intended to facilitate annexations. But I altogether dissent from that view, and confidently assert that in certain cases there is an enormous extension of powers which will enable Her Majesty's Government to annex new territories. I will not go further into that point now, but will refer presently to the case of extension with regard to which I have placed a Notice on the Paper. One measure of Her Majesty's Government is that the High Commissioner shall register claims for land over which Her Majesty has no dominion. Up to the present time Her Majesty's Governments had steadily resisted that proposal. I am quite aware that the registration of claims to land beyond the Dominions of Her Majesty would not constitute title; but, on the other hand, it seems to me to be a great encouragement to men to get marketable claims improperly, and to involve considerable danger. My second objection to the Vote is that the Government propose practically to hand the territory over to Queensland. Sir, I hold a very strong opinion upon that matter, and I object to handing over in this way the government of Native races. I hold strongly that if we will take territory containing Native races we have certain responsibilities to assume. I hold that it would be most wrong, most base, and cowardly to shirk these responsibilities. We have taken under our dominion these Native tribes, and I say it would be base to shirk the responsibilities we have thereby incurred, and to hand them over to any Colony that may want to take them. I think that a course of that kind is not only wrong on our part, but is also bad for the Colonies themselves. I believe it will be an evil day for the Australian Colonies if, in addition to their wide Dominions, they have attached to them a kind of Black Southern States, which we know imperilled the position of the United States of America. We are often told when we raise objections of this kind— "Well, but these Colonists whom you seem to distrust are our own flesh and blood." No doubt they are our own flesh and blood; but it must be borne in mind that the Australian Colonists are situated very differently from ourselves. They are a very sparse population, and are distributed over an enormous tract of country; they are not a solid population like ourselves, They are a population made up of enterprizing and ambitious men—men in these days largely given to speculation, anxious to make rapid fortunes, and very desirous of accumulating these fortunes by means of speculations in land. An eminent authority upon these matters, who lately visited that country—namely, Baron Hubner— noticed this circumstance. He says, re- ferring to the constant cry amongst our Colonists in that part of the world for annexation in the Western Pacific— The cry for annexation in the Western Pacific and elsewhere is a craze which is accounted for by the wants of speculators continually in quest of lands to buy and sell. My view is that if we must take possession of these Native territories we are bound to protect the Natives, and the dictum of a very eminent statesman in years not very long gone by was this— Where large numbers of Natives and a small number of Whites are brought together under one Government, their control should be entrusted to an authority directly responsible to the Imperial Government, and able to bear itself impartially between conflicting interests. In this case of New Guinea it seems to me we are altogether transgressing the most wholesome rules of the great statesmen who have gone before us. I think that the proposed annexation of New Guinea, -which involves the handing over of it to Queensland, is altogether an unjustifiable proceeding. This territory to be annexed in New Guinea is an enormous one, probably as large as France and Germany put together. It is a territory utterly unknown to us. We know it is inhabited by an interesting and comparatively civilized people. Let me quote a few words from a most attentive observer, Captain Bridge, R.N., who says with regard to the character of the people of New Guinea— Throughout the parts of New Guinea with which I am acquainted the inhabitants are ingenious and industrious agriculturists, and carefully fence their plantations. Their houses are large and well built. They make very fine fishing nets. Their canoes are of an enormous size, and the trees are procured a long way off. Pottery is made in large quantities for export. I might read many more extracts; but I will not at this time of day trouble the Committee with more. I think that extract is quite sufficient to show what kind of people they are in New Guinea, and I say to annex these people without in any degree attempting to obtain their consent in a most unjustifiable proceeding. I am aware that we do not make a bare and simple present of New Guinea to Queensland; but I am also aware of the fact that indignation meetings have been held in that Colony in order to force the hands of the Government in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, and the Colonists have forced the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Now under a very thin veil of reservation we are yielding to their demands, and are practically handing over this great Island to the Colonists of Queensland, who, by their persistency, have succeeded in getting their way. I admit that the Colonists are our own flesh and blood. Speaking as a Scotchman, I may say that they are specially my own Scotch flesh and blood; but still they are enterprizing and ambitious speculators, as I have said. I must speak plainly in regard to this Colony of Queensland, and I must say that it is specially unfortunate that this territory of New Guinea should be handed over to this particular Colony, and for two reasons. The first is, that Queensland is deeply dyed in that horrible Slave Trade in the Pacific— in that horrible system of kidnapping of which we have had the amplest evidence in the Papers produced before us. I say that New Guinea is deeply dyed in that very criminal Slave Trade which has taken place for years past in the Pacific; and if it were necessary I could read many extracts to show how barbarous that trade is, and how terribly it is disfigured by crime. All who have taken an interest in this matter—and I should think everyone in this House has—must know very well how bad that trade has been. Therefore I say that this Colony is not one which should be entrusted with this great extent of territory, and with the government of this interesting and pacific people. Another reason I will give in support of my view is, that Queensland has attempted to force our hands in regard to the annexation of this territory in spite of the prohibition of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Colony practically proceeded to bully us into giving them their own way. The Colony has got its own way in spite of the remonstrances of this country; it has got the control and the administration of New Guinea in spite of the deliberate opinion expressed by successive Governments of this country. This transaction has taken place without giving Parliament any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject except this miserable opportunity which we have tonight. Practically Her Majesty's Government have surrendered it to Queensland. There is to be an Administrator of New Guinea; but he is to be under the Governor of Queensland and under the Executive Council of that Colony. I do say without reservation that with the exception of the thin veil of protection afforded by this country the control of this territory is to be handed over to Queensland, which I think is a most unjustifiable proceeding. I will once more quote Baron Hubner, who, speaking of our relations with the Colonies and our habit of yielding to them, says — Recent requests for the annexation of New Guinea made again and again were at first categorically refused by Lord Derby, then gently put aside and ultimately admitted in principle. Baron Hubner said that in the very early stages of these proceedings; and, that being so, I wonder what he would have said after the Government have adopted the action they have in regard to New Guinea. The terms agreed upon are practically a surrender to Queensland. They were proposed by Queensland— even the reservations were proposed by her. The plan adopted is altogether Queensland's plan, and I say again that it is one taken against the better judgment of Her Majesty's Government. I think the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) was formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies. I wish to quote what he said on the subject a very short time ago. I find that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed himself distinctly upon this subject so lately as December last. He said— Her Majesty's Government have very carefully considered the New Guinea Corres pondence, and desire to state frankly their opinion on the Colonies' proposal. The establishment of sovereignty over New Guinea involves the possibility of very heavy expenditure, and is not necessary for the defence of Australia from foreign aggression. That extract will be found in the Blue Book—Proceedings of Colonial Conference, vol. 2, page 200. It is a telegram of the 3rd December, 1886. Well, Queensland was not satisfied. They were determined to have New Guinea, and now it appears they are going to get it with a small reservation which I think will be soon swept away when this country happens to come into collision with the self-governed Colony. We dare not attempt to hold our own against them. Queensland and the other Australian Colonies are very cautious in this matter as people who know they will get all their own way are very apt to be when they make a bargain. They have made one of the character of "Heads I win, tails you lose." They have carefully limited the amount they are to contribute towards the expenses of the new territory. They have undertaken to expend £15,000 a-year on the Government of the territory; but they have been careful to limit the sum to that amount, and to make it clear that if the £15,000 is not sufficient, and any financial difficulty is encountered, the British taxpayer will have to supply the deficit, and bear all the necessary burden. From the same publication from which I have already quoted the present Secretary of State for War, when Colonial Secretary, said— The Gold Coast and Lagos expenditure is £150,000 a-year, and New Guinea might cost more.'' If New Guinea did cost more than £150,000 the Colony of Queensland would contribute £15,000, and we should have to contribute all the rest. I hold that the bargain we have made with the Colony of Queensland is one under which they get all they desire, and we run the risk of incurring a loss. I stoutly maintain that, as the British Settlements Bill is not passed into law, under the present law we have no power to annex this territory and turn it over to Queensland. I hold that under the existing law we cannot do this thing.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The Law Officers whom we have consulted are of opinion that there is not the least doubt about New Guinea being a British Settlement when sovereignty was declared.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I beg very humbly to differ from the right hon. Baronet. Her Majesty's Law Advisers gave the opinion that the territory when, annexed must be taken to have been acquired as distinguished from conquest or cession.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Their opinion was that Her Majesty's Government must be taken to have the power they have exercised in the matter.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Then read the passage from the Blue Book.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

There is no passage in the Blue Book on this point. The opinion I am referring to is not a published opinion.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I can only go on the opinion that has been published, and in this passage to which I refer the Law Advisers of Her Majesty advise that under the present law we can only treat the territory as a British Settlement, as distinguished from a territory obtained by conquest or cession. You cannot say that this country has been conquered, because it has not been conquered; and you cannot say it has been ceded, because it has not been ceded; and, therefore, you cannot treat it from any of those points of view. If Her Majesty's Law Advisers say that we are already entitled to treat this as a British Settlement, why did you place such an unnatural definition in your British Settlements Bill at present before Parliament?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I admit, Sir, that I shall not be in Order in going into the question of the British Settlements Bill; but the right hon. Baronet, by his interruption, rendered it almost necessary for me to say a word or two on that subject. The opinion which the right hon. Baronet says the Law Advisers have given him is not before the House; and I trust he will permit me to say that I hope Her Majesty's Government will in the Bill propose a clause for the purpose of —

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I must rise to Order, Sir. I must protest against the hon. Member going into these matters, because I shall be unable to follow him. I think, Sir, it is quite irregular, and I may add that his statement is altogether incorrect.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I will merely say that, in my view, Her Majesty's Government are not entitled under the existing law to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement, to annex it, and to deal with it under that title. I deny that anyone who reads the present Falkland Islands Law regarding British Settlements can come to any other conclusion than that the British Settlements therein referred to are bonâ fide British Settlements, and not constructive unnatural British Settlements, I have not got the Falkland Islands Law by me just at this moment, because I did not expect that we should have this clashing of opinion. There are two laws on the subject—one of which recites that Her Majesty's subjects have resided on the Falkland Islands and certain portions of the West Coast of Africa, and it is necessary to make laws for such subjects; and they, therefore, recite that Her Majesty has a right to make laws in those Settlements. Then you have another law, which professes to amend the Falkland Islands Law, and says that the same laws shall apply to British Settlements in every other part of the world. In any common-sense point of view, can you say that this great unknown and unexplored territory is really a British Settlement? It is a Settlement that is really not settled at all. You have half-a-dozen settlers, probably in different parts of an enormous territory; but it is a fiction and a perversion of the plain meaning of the Statute to which I have referred to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement. I am free to say at once that, whether it be legal or illegal to treat this territory as a British Settlement, as a matter of expediency, I, for one, should not object to what I may call a nominal annexation which shall enable us to assume jurisdiction along the coast in order to keep off marauding foreigners and to protect the Native tribes in the interior. If we are prepared to do that—if we are prepared to assume responsibility—if the British Crown and the British nation are to be responsible in a matter of this kind, though I may think it illegal to treat the territory as a British Settlement, I should not say that it was altogether inexpedient. I do not object to a nominal annexation of this kind, provided we are prepared to act on the doctrine that the Imperial Government shall be bound to bear the responsibility of conducting the government of the territory and to hold the balance between the Colonists and the Natives. But I hold that you are departing from that principle; and I say that by so doing you are inflicting the greatest injustice on the Natives. In handing over the control of the territory to the Colony of Queensland you are guilty of a most unjust proceeding. The proper course to pursue is to follow the advice that your own Commissioner—Sir Peter Scratchley—gave, when he said—"New Guinea must be governed for the Natives and by the Natives."

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Hear, hear!

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I am delighted to hear the right hon. Baronet say "Hear, hear !" and one might assume from that that he is going to adopt that policy, I say, however, advisedly and deliberately, that, in my opinion, the right hon. Baronet is doing nothing of the kind. He is going to basely surrender the Natives, whom he ought to protect and to enable to govern themselves, to the Government of Queensland. He is going to appoint an Administrator, who is to be under the orders of the Executive Government of Queensland; and I repeat again that whenever we come into collision with these self-governing Colonies in these days, the tendency is for the Mother Country to go to the wall, and for the Colony to have its own way. I believe the Government has departed from the principle of governing New Guinea on the system I so much desire to see adopted, and which the Colonial Secretary seemed to approve—namely, by the Natives for the Natives. I protest against the course which the Government are about to adopt; and, in that view, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item M. 1—Salaries—be reduced by £250."—(Sir George Campbell.)

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The hon. Member has repeated over and over again that the Government are going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland; indeed, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was based on that assumption. That assumption is entirely incorrect; and it follows that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument, from beginning to end, so far as it was based upon that assumption, is incorrect. The Government are not going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the discussion upon the question of New Guinea at the Colonial Conference, and who studies the Schedule of the Queensland Bill, which provides for the expenses of the government of British New Guinea and the mode in which the territory is to be administered, must see that this country keeps New Guinea entirely in its own hands. I will not detain the Committee by quoting these passages, but only refer them to the Colonial Conference Papers (Vol. 2, p. 210). There is really no foundation for the contention of the hon. Member that we are practically going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. It would not be unnatural that—looking to the trade through Torres Straits—the Australasian Colonies should desire to see in British hands the land on the other side of the Straits; and the feeling is not confined to Queensland as to the desirability of claiming Sovereignty over New Guinea. The feeling is universal throughout the Colonies of Australia; and, with the exception of South Australia, they are all ready to subscribe towards the expenses of the government of New Guinea. Therefore the hon. Member is wrong when he assumes that Queensland alone is interested in New Guinea. It is by no means clear that the other Australasian Colonies would be prepared, even if Queensland desired it, to see New Guinea handed over to Queensland. The hon. Member has thought fit to go back to the old complaint of the ill-treatment of Polynesians in Queensland. The hon. Member must be aware that a Commission was appointed, at the instigation of the Queensland Government, to examine into the charges, and that the whole system has been changed. Many Natives have been returned to their own Islands, and everything has been done by the Queensland Government within the past year or two to conduct the system on a proper footing. I am the more surprised at the hon. Member bringing this question forward now, because I read, a short time ago, a book entitled The British Empire, written by a Sir George Campbell. The writer of that book admitted that Queensland had turned over a new leaf, and that practically the Colony was now free from those charges. Of course, I do not wish to put too much weight on the authority of that writer as against the views of the hon. Member; but still I think it right to quote his opinion. The hon. Member seems to think that Her Majesty's Government have made no provision for the Natives of New Guinea. But I would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 210 of the 2nd volume of the discussions at the Colonial Conference. He will see there that paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 most carefully protect the Natives in regard to the buying of land by private persons; the prohibition of the deportation of Natives except under Ordinances, reserved for Her Majesty's assent; and trading with Natives in arms, intoxicants, &c., was absolutely prohibited except under Ordinance reserved for Her Majesty's assent. In short, every protection was given to the Natives, and I am convinced that this measure will be one of undoubted benefit to them. The hon. Member also seems to think that the Government have pursued a different policy from that of their Predecessors. This is not the case. In 1881 the assistance of the Imperial Government to support the Protectorate was recognized by Lord Derby. My immediate Predecessor, the present Secretary of State for War, was of the same opinion, as was shown by his telegram of August 14, 1885, in which he said Her Majesty's Government were willing to proclaim a Sovereignty upon certain conditions therein specified. There was considerable discussion as to those conditions both before and at the Colonial Conference; but in the end there was no material variation between the proposal approved by my Predecessor and the present arrangement. I do not know that there is anything more to answer, because the whole point of the hon. Member's speech is that we are handing New Guinea over to Queensland, and that I have denied. I will not now enter upon a discussion of the British Settlements Bill, although I must say that the hon. Member's statement of it is profoundly incorrect. I say now, as I have said before, that New Guinea does not come under the head of conquest or cession, and that it is a Settlement; and I would point out that parts of it along the sea shore have been for some time past inhabited by some British settlers. It is a British Settlement, and subject to the Act of 23 & 24 Vict.c. 121. With regard to the point as to registration of land purchases in the Western Pacific Islands, that subject was also brought before the Colonial Conference. All other countries are allowing registration of purchases of land by their people— Germans, Dutch, and French—and why we alone, of all countries, should not allow our subjects to settle in these Islands, and have their titles registered, does seem to me unaccountable. That change has been made, and I have to assure the hon. Member that if it had been done long ago we should have been saved a great deal of trouble in Samoa and other places.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR, (Cornwall, Mid. St. Austell)

I entirely dissent from almost every view of the hon. Member behind me (Sir George Campbell). I happen to have been born in Australia, and to know something about the Australian Colonies. I know very well the extreme difficulties which surround our dealings with the Western Pacific Islands. I know, especially with regard to the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, the registration of claims to land in the Western Pacific —that the want of such registration has for years stood in the way of the settlement of the Islands there. I know that the want of such a system as this has for years past driven away legitimate English business from the Pacific, and I think that the arrangement which has been brought about is one of the greatest boons which could have been given to the mercantile community of Australia. I differ also from my hon. Friend in his estimate of the treatment the Natives are likely to receive under the authority of the Queensland Government. Only so lately as last year I was all through the Northern part of Queensland, and I saw a good deal of the Black labour there, and I must say that I never saw a more cheerful, contented, and hardy-looking lot of men in my life. During the last four or five years these men have been taught that they are under the protection of the Government of this country. They are aware of the fact that they have absolute protection against their masters. No foreman upon any one of the estates upon which Black labour is used can give any one of his labourers half-an-ounce of tobacco less than his proper weekly ration without having a complaint made and the whole thing thrashed out. These men are now thoroughly independent of their masters—more so, in fact, than are the men in trades unions here—and they are better looked after than our ordinary English workman. Then I also entirely differ from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on the whole question of annexation in the Western Pacific. The only regret I feel with regard to our Possessions in New Guinea is that they do not extend over the whole Island. I think it is out of the question that we could ever contemplate the possibility of the Australians remaining content to have around them a large territory which may be taken at any time by any other Power without making some attempt themselves to become possessed of such territory. I think that the extension contemplated by Her Majesty's Government is good for the Natives, for Australia, and for the British Empire; and I sincerely hope that, so far from the Colonial Office being discouraged in the policy they are pursuing, they will do their best to extend as far as possible the authority of England over the Western Pacific.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

I should like to make one or two remarks upon this important question; but as it is very late in the Session it is my intention to make these observations of a very brief character. With regard to the subject of the New Hebrides —

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

There is a Motion before the Committee for the reduction of an item relating to New Guinea.

THE CHAIRMAN

Unless the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) intends to deal with the question of New Guinea he is not now in Order.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

Will the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies state to the Committee the nature of the titles he refers to for the registration of which facilities have been granted?

SIR HENRY HOLLA.ND

As a rule the land is bought from the Natives, and up to the present time there has been no means of registering titles to land so bought by British subjects. It is of extreme importance that when land is bought there should at once be a registration of title, otherwise difficulties arise. At the present moment in Samoa there is trouble arising between German and British subjects from want of this registration.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he addressed to the Committee, narrowed the points upon which I spoke very much. He has brought it to this issue— Is this a surrender to Queensland, or is it not? He says it is not, but I say it is. If the right hon. Baronet will refer to the documentary evidence bearing upon this matter he will find that the Go- vernor of Queensland is directed to consult the Executive Council on all matters relating to New Guinea. The case that the right hon. Baronet referred to, of the Governor of South Africa being also the Governor of Bechuanaland, is an entirely different matter. I quite admit that all the Australian Colonies are anxious that we should take some step in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, because they are anxious to keep the Germans out. That I admit, and I do not object to the assumption of a Protectorate over New Guinea; but what I do object to is the turning this territory over to the administration of Queensland, which, in spite of what the right hon. Baronet has said, I do respectfully urge upon the Committee is not the right authority. The right hon. Baronet must have a very short memory with regard to this Polynesian, labour traffic; he speaks of it as raking up an old story. If he will allow me to say so, it is a very recent story. I admit that when public opinion was directed to the matter, a great change took place in the condition of things which had previously been a great scandal. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the scandal, and I rely for what I said on the horrible nature of that traffic on the Report of this very Commission. The Report of that Commission showed that most abominable and hateful practices existed. I am not consoled by the assurances we have received from the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur), who represents the Spreadeagleism of Australia. He tells us that not only New Guinea, but the whole of the Islands of the Pacific, should be annexed by this country. I am not so satisfied as he is that the people he would thus place under allegiance to Her Majesty would be so satisfied with the arrangement as he would be. I am not so satisfied with the capacity of Queensland for treating Native races with consideration as is the hon. Member. The man who has committed a serious offence may repent and may be reclaimed, but you would not on that account make him your son's tutor. The Commission to which I have referred exposed great and terrible iniquities; but even now I almost doubt whether full justice has been done to the Natives. There were most terrible and horrible crimes. There was a crime as horrible as any which ever disgraced humanity. I refer to that of a slave dealer who ran down a vessel of Natives, and caused those who were endeavouring to save themselves to be shot. The perpetrator of this crime was tried for murder, and convicted; but I do not know that he has been executed. I trust that these iniquities and crimes do not exist now; but still I cannot accept the doctrine that a Colony reformed in these respects is one to which you ought to entrust the care of Natives, as in the case of the inhabitants of New Guinea. I admit the reservation of the right hon. Baronet; but my argument is that when you have these enterprizing gentlemen in North Queensland—the gentlemen who hold indignation meetings, and who desire to speculate in land in New Guinea—when you have these gentlemen pressing Her Majesty's Government bit by bit you will find your reservations disappear, and bit by bit you will find that the dominion will fall into the hands of Queensland. I think that such a thing would be very bad for the Natives, for the Colony of Queensland, and for the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are protected for a period of years by the undertaking of the Colonies to pay £15,000 a-year towards the expenses of New Guinea. I deny that that guarantee is any protection at all, for in the event of Native wars £1,500,000 might have to be spent in place of £15,000, and for every penny of that the Home Government would have to be responsible.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I referred to the expenses of administration.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Yes; but if you go beyond this £15,000 for wars or any other purpose, we, the taxpayers of this country, will have to pay, and not the Colonies. And now just one word about the subject of the registration of titles. It is all very well to say that these lands, the title to which is acquired, are bought from the Natives. But the question is, how is it bought, and who are the Natives from whom it is bought? I have had a great deal of experience in connection with matters of this sort, and I know there are very frequently questions to be gone into as to the outs and ins of the titles of the Natives themselves. There are many Natives whose titles are repudiated by their own people, and these are the people who try to bring in the strangers. I do not care what the French or Germans or Americans or any other people do; but I contend that we are bound to look after the honour and justice of Her Majesty's Government. I say that it is a most serious thing for this country to arrange for the registration of these titles, which, in nine cases out of ten, are, in all probability, of a most rotten description. I will not withdraw my Motion, as I think it is a right one; but as I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division I will allow it to be negatived. I am not convinced —I am of the same opinion still.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I wish to say a word in support of the views of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but on somewhat different grounds from those taken up by the hon. Member. My opposition to the proceeding to which the hon. Member has called attention is, that I am very much afraid that it is one of the greatest dangers to our Empire. In my opinion one of the greatest dangers which we have to face is this constant extension of the Empire. Nothing tends more greatly to weaken an Empire than unwieldy development in distant parts. All these extensions mean expense—mean drafting soldiers into the new territories to take care of them. I think the whole thing is dangerous, and therefore I protest against these continual extensions. Especially do I protest against our having one code of morals in the East, at the Cape, and another in the West. That which we are ashamed to do at the Cape we should also be ashamed to do elsewhere. I must say I think that the course we have taken in connection with New Guinea will lead us eventually, as a similar course in other parts of the world has done, into great trouble, and involve in serious difficulties those who come after us.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I have seen something of this "blackbirding" in the Pacific, and I know something about Queensland's connection with it, and I frankly admit that in the past there was a good deal of murder and piracy and crime of the deepest dye. I know that it was the rule that where Natives died before a certain period their wages died with them, and that while this practice prevailed it was remarkable what a large number of Natives succumbed before the time arrived for them to draw their wages. I have known schooners go down with crowds of Black men on board. I know something about the Kanaka races, and I like them very well—indeed, I think they are amongst the best peoples in the world. Whatever the law may have been in the past, it is now modified, and the planters are now glad to treat the Natives who work for them much better than the Irish tenantry are treated, or than the Scotch crofters are treated, or than the workpeople in large cities in this country are treated by their employers. Queensland stands very free from blame in this matter now, and. I do not think we have a right to throw stones at her at the present time. Of course, we must be ashamed of what took place there; but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great many of the ruffians who were guilty of the worst atrocities were Germans, and were not Englishmen or Britishers. As to the argument of the right hon. Baronet, it is thoroughly illogical. I am thoroughly opposed to extensions of territory under the Colonial Office; but I have no objection to extensions under Colonial Governments. I have no objection to Queensland, at its own expense, annexing New Guinea; but I object to annexation being carried out, and the administration of New Guinea being undertaken at the expense of this country, seeing that Queensland will get all the benefit. In cases of this kind, whether you make these territories Crown Colonies or self - governing Colonies, the feeling of the Colonists is carried out; and, that being so, how can anyone complain? If a Colony is dependent on the Mother Country for assistance in time of need, it is to some extent careless with regard to the difficulties it gets into, and the expenses it incurs; but when it is thrown on its own resources it thinks twice before it does anything that will bring about Native wars or anything of that kind. Remember the history of New Zealand. As long as the New Zealand Colonists had the Colonial Office to fall back upon they had never done with Maori wars, and this country spent hundreds of thousands of pounds upon them; but as soon as New Zealand was made responsible for its own affairs it is remarkable to observe how it has abolished the necessity for wars. Wars are expensive, and the Colony cannot afford them. Government is not carried on so stupidly by those who have to pay for it as by those who have nothing to do but reap the profit, the expense being paid by somebody else. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) seems to have a notion that all the Colonists are bad. Well, I myself have had very often to attack Colonists; but I must say that if the hon. Member had come into contact with savage or semi-savage races, he would probably have shown as much bias as many of the Colonists have shown in their dealings with these peoples.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

With regard to this territory of New Guinea, I think that the Government of this country has in the past been somewhat neglectful of the interests of the Colonists. In my opinion, when Queensland took the step that it did, it was absolutely required, in the interests of the Australian Colonies, that New Guinea should become a part of the British Empire. New Guinea is situated so near to Queensland that to have admitted any European Power there—as I am sorry to say we have done to a certain extent—was nothing less than a great misfortune to Australia. The Dutch were there originally, and they are not an offending people; and I suppose that the portion of New Guinea they claimed they were entitled to claim, and I do not think we could have objected. But it was well known a few years ago that both France and Germany were casting covetous eyes on New Guinea, when the Queensland Government took prompt action by hoisting the British Flag over aportion of the Island. Unfortunately for this country, and for Australia, Germany had anticipated so far the action of Queensland, or rather of the British Government, as to have planted their Flag upon a portion of the territory. That was a great misfortune, in my opinion, to the Australian people; Germany is there on their frontier, and it may prove a source of difficulty to these Colonies, although I believe that Australia has a great future before her. Possibly European troubles may arise out of Germany having got a footing in that part of the world—a footing which they ought never to have had a chance of securing. In my view, the Govern- ment would act wisely in asserting their position, so far as they possibly can, not only with regard to the British territory in New Guinea, but in taking care that Germany shall have no more of the Island than is absolutely required, and that energetic measures will be taken in support of the Australian Colonies with regard to the New Hebrides, which is a very serious matter just now. I know from personal experience of these Colonies the great inconvenience that Australia is put to through the scum of Europe being sent out to the New Hebrides from France. A great deal of annoyance is caused to the inhabitants, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will be energetic in saying that the Queensland people shall be sustained in their efforts to prevent any more land than is absolutely necessary being acquired by foreigners in order to keep our European neighbours from Australian waters. I trust Her Majesty's Government will always be prepared to assert their position on behalf of the Australian Colonies.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

On the Item for the office of the High Commissioner, I should like to refer to a matter which falls within the cognizance of the Western Pacific High Commissioner. He appears to have vested in him a Protectorate of the Natives, and, amongst others, of the Natives of the New Hebrides. Now, in 1878 there was a mutual agreement come to between Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of France that these Islands were to form a neutral territory which neither France nor England should occupy. This agreement was ratified in the year 1883, and yet I find that so lately as 1886 the Governor of New Caledonia despatched a frigate to the New Hebrides with troops and stores on board, in direct violation of the agreement between Great Britain and France. Now, Sir, this violation of Treaty —

THE CHAIRMAN

I must say I fail to see the relevancy of the hon. Member's observations to this Vote.

MR. WEBSTER

The object for which these Islands were so occupied, Sir, will form my reason for mentioning the subject. The occupation of these islands is, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, for the purpose of forming a syndicate to allow on these Islands a convict or récidivist settlement. Further than that, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, the Presbyterian ministers who are at work amongst the Natives at the present moment will be very greatly injured and very greatly damnified if this project is carried out. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the High Commissioner has power over these Natives, and I venture to urge that in no respect should his power be affected by the Government of France taking or usurping his position —

THE CHAIRMAN

The High Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter.

MR. WEBSTER

I venture to point out that if he has no jurisdiction, he is responsible for the Natives in districts where there are British interests.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The Islands the hon. Member is referring to are not under his control at all.

DR. CLARK

I should like to put a question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to the affairs of Tonga and the doings of the ex-missionary, Mr. Baker, who, acting through old King George, who is merely his tool, is inflicting great cruelties and injuries on the Wesleyans in that island. This is not the first time that Mr. Baker has been creating all this disturbance down there. When the Wesleyans dismissed him from his position as missionary five or six years ago, he had a warning; and now, after the murder of these unfortunate people, to which attention has already been called in this House, merely because they were Wesleyans, he again received a warning at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Surely we ought to go further than that. This man, acting ostensibly in the name of old King George, who is a man of about 90 and who is merely his tool, is carrying on depredations with impunity. I think he ought to be tried for murder, and deported either to this country or to Australia.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I fully admit the great importance of the subject which has been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, I must remark that Her Majesty's Government have given it very grave consideration. Sir Charles Mitchell was specially appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and went, accompanied by his Legal Adviser, Mr. Clarke, the Chief Justice of Fiji, to examine into the whole question. Sir Charles Mitchell, who has throughout acted in a spirit of absolute impartiality, and with great tact and judgment, examined a large number of witnesses on both sides, besides hearing Mr. Baker himself, as well as King George. Having thoroughly investigated the matter, Sir Charles Mitchell recommended that Mr. Baker should not be deported, but should be warned, together with the King, that they must take means to preserve peace. That Report has been presented to Parliament, and I will, therefore, content myself with reading one paragraph— namely, 68— The conclusion to which I have arrived is not favourable to Mr. Baker, although great allowances must be made for the difficulties of his position.… I should undoubtedly have exercised the power vested in me of prohibiting Mr. Baker from remaining in Tonga for a period, had it not been that I felt that his presence with the King would, after the warning which my visit to Tonga had given, be the best moans of preserving peace. In these circumstances, I do not think that I should be justified in overruling Sir Charles Mitchell's opinion until a strong case is established on the other side. I have caused Mr. Baker to be informed that Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove the course which he is shown to have pursued of late years in Tonga; that he must remember that, as a British subject, he is under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner; and that in the event of any further ill-treatment of the people of Tonga being found to be traceable to his influence, it may become the duty of the High Commissioner, without further delay, to put in force the powers under the Western Pacific Orders of Council. A similar warning has been conveyed to King George. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member will see that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered this matter.

DR. CLARK

What the right hon. Baronet states happened some years ago —that is to say, the same warning was conveyed to Mr. Baker; but nothing came of it.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I can only say that Mr. Baker has now had a final warning.

MR. ROUND (Essex, N.E., Harwich)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) a question which I hope he will see his way to answer. It is whether any further Papers will be submitted to Parliament in connection with the recent events in the Island of Mauritius? I am sure he will agree with me that events of a very grave character have taken place recently in that Island, and that the Government have come a very important decision there.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I have given very full and grave consideration to this matter, and have arrived at the conclusion not to present any further Papers on the question to Parliament. I am extremely grateful to the House for the confidence which it has placed in me in regard to this subject, and to hon. Members for not pressing me to present Papers. Since arriving at the decision I have mentioned, I have again carefully considered this matter, and am absolutely satisfied that it is not desirable to lay any of these Papers on the Table. Grave charges and counter-charges were bandied about during the proceedings. Many of these were collateral to the issues which I had to try, difficult and important as they were; many were based upon hearsay evidence; and the persons who have been charged have not had an opportunity of either explaining away the evidence or defending themselves against it. The Committee will, I think, under the circumstances, consider it unfair that these charges should be published in a Parliamentary Paper without any statement from those who are affected by them being appended. In the interests of peace and order in the Colony, I am satisfied that I have adopted the proper course. It is in the highest degree desirable not in any way to diminish the chance of removing any ill-feeling which exists between the opposing parties. The best course to adopt is to give the Governor a fair chance of restoring the confidence of the people in his administration, and if I presented the Papers to Parliament that chance would, I believe, be greatly diminished.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) I have only one question to ask. I should like him to tell us how he is going to dispose of Mr. Clifford Lloyd?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £48,180, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, Bechuanaland, the Island of St. Helena, and the High Commissioner for South Africa.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I desire, in reference to Sub-Head A, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies for some information with respect to the allowance in consequence of giving up the Orange River Territory. If my historical memory does not fail me, I think the territory was given up 40 years ago. I should have thought that if we had given up territory we ought not to be called upon to pay anything for doing so. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long this payment is going to last?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The British sovereignty over the Orange River Territory was proclaimed in 1848, but was revoked and abandoned in 1854 for reasons which I need not enter into. But I may say that an enormous cost to this country was incurred by maintaining dominion over this territory, and there was constant liability to frontier contests. When it was abandoned, compensation was given to various persons who suffered in consequence of the abandonment. The annuities, which amounted to £48,316 have been reduced to the present sum.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I have given Notice to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,099, being the compensation for the abolition of office in the Transvaal, merely in order to enable me to ask the question what these compensations are? Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to afford us some satisfactory explanation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That ItemB—for Salaries—be reduced by £2,099." — (Sir George Campbell.)

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

When the Transvaal territory was retroceded to the Boers and became the South African Republic compensation had to be given to those gentlemen who were in office there under the British Government, and whose services the South African Republic did not desire to retain. Mr. Gurdon, now Sir William Gurdon, was sent out by the Treasury with the object of, among other things, going thoroughly into the cases of these gentlemen, and of considering what compensation should be given. The sum included in the Vote is the compensation allowance of these Transvaal officials— five in number—whose services the Boer Republic did not retain, and who had such length of service that the Government could not deal with them by giving a gratuity, as was the case with some of the other officers. I am quite ready to show the hon. Gentleman the Report of Sir William Gurdon; but I do not think the Committee would desire me, at this late hour, to read out extracts from it. I have no reason to suppose that these officers did not do their duty thoroughly to the British Government in the Transvaal. Therefore the Government cannot fairly deprive them of the pensions which their services entitle them to receive.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I am very distrustful on the subject of compensations, for there are no greater abuses than those connected with the matter of compensations. I should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) had told us who the five gentlemen are.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I said I would not trouble the Committee with the details of Mr. Gurdon's Report. I can, however, if the Committee wish, detail the services of these gentlemen. I have offered to show the hon. Gentleman the Report of Mr. Gurdon, and I can hardly think the Committee would care to hear the details.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Is Sir Theophilus Shepstone one of these gentlemen?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Yes; and the sum allowed him is £326 per annum.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Then I beg to withdraw my previous Amendment, and to propose the reduction of the Vote by £326, being the amount of pension paid to Sir Theophilus Shepstone.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I must protest most strongly against this grant to Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Theophilus Shepstone was the gentleman who led us into all this trouble. He abused the trust reposed in him by annexing the Transvaal, and led us into the difficulty in which we now find ourselves. It is monstrous that the British taxpayer should be charged with a pension to this man. I am sure I need not trouble the Committee with any further words upon this subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item B—Salaries, Transvaal—be reduced by £326, Compensation to Sir Theophilus Shepstone."—(Sir George Campbell.)

DR. CLARK

There is one important point upon which I should like some information, and I have no doubt that you, Sir, will be interested in knowing something about it, as you have occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that, some time ago, the Treasury surcharged Sir Theophilus Shepstone with a very large amount of money that he was supposed to have misappropriated, or not properly accounted for, while Administrator of the Transvaal. I think the money was put down by Sir Theophilus Shepstone and his sons to forage, and the forage consisted of vases, and combs, and brushes, and fishing-rods, and the like. The late Liberal Government surcharged Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and his pension was stopped for the purpose of the repayment of this money. I understand that since then the pension has been given back to Sir Theophilus Shepstone; and I should like to know the reasons why the action taken by the previous Government in compelling Sir Theophilus Shepstone to pay back money he and his sons had taken from the British taxpayer for fishing-rods, and vases, and other articles, which were put down to forage, has been reversed? Sir William Gurdon. when he examined the accounts, found that these were the articles of which the forage was composed; and you, Sir, when Secretary to the Treasury, made some very strong observations upon the proceeding. I should like to know why this pension has been given back to Sir Theophilus Shepstone, if he has not made good the money?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

As to an abuse of trust by Sir Theophilus Shepstone in annexing the Transvaal, I cannot possibly argue a question now which has been argued for three weeks together in the House of Commons; but I must remind the hon. Member that, at that time, neither Mr. Childers nor Mr. Forster disapproved of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's action. As to the other point, no doubt the accounts were kept in a most irregular—I may almost say ludicrous—form; but the Treasury and Sir William Gurdon acquitted Sir Theophilus Shepstone of making any charges for money not actually expended. I believe that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has paid the amount which it was at last decided he should pay, and that he is now receiving his full pension.

MR. CONYBEARE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Theophilus Shepstone is receiving anything in the way of salary from any other office?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I believe not.

MR. CONYBEARE

I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not quite certain he will make inquiries. He says he only believes that Sir Theophilus Shepstone is not receiving anything in the wav of salary from any other office.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I quite understand the hon. Member, and I will, of course, make inquiries upon the point. I am almost certain, however, that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has paid off what it was finally decided he should pay off, and that now he is receiving full pension.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I am very desirous that we should not deal with this question in the dark. I am very distrustful in such cases as this; but I will take advantage of the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries. If, however, I live to another Session of Parliament, I will bring the matter forward again.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I can have no objection to so reasonable an. offer.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Under Sub-head C, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £150, part of the allowance to the Governor of Natal as Special Commissioner in Zululand. I will at once explain my objection to the way we are dealing with Zululand. I am one of those who have always felt that, by the part we took in Zululand, we did injustice to the people. We totally destroyed their Government, and set them by the ears, and made self-government impossible. I do not think we were wrong in annexing Zululand, the more especially as it was not connected with the interior of Africa. My objection, therefore, is not to the annexation of Zululand—it is not to the expense of the annexation—for if Zululand can be administered for £300 a-year the work is done very cheaply indeed. For my part, I do not think it ever will be done so cheaply, It will involve great expense, and I do not think, considering the way in which we have treated these people and the very regrettable change of policy which has occurred, we should begrudge—I, for my part, could not—something very considerable for the administration of Zululand; but I will not go into the question of the administration of the country. My objection to this arrangement is similar to the objection I take in regard to New Guinea—namely, that having taken possession of Native territory, we are making it over to the first Colony desirous of administering it. In Zululand we have not gone quite so far as we have in the case of New Guinea; but we have taken a very considerable step in that direction. What have the Government done? They have taken the first step, and a very large step, towards making over Zululand to Natal. It is proposed that the Governor of Natal shall, in the administration of Zululand, be assisted by an Executive Committee, and that Executive Committee is to be the Executive Government of Natal, plus two elected Members. That is to say, you are to have two official Members of the Executive Government of Natal and four elected Members. Sir, I say that this is a very large step towards making over Zululand to Natal, and I am wholly opposed to anything of the kind. The Government of Natal has already enough to do without administering Zululand, because there are now in Natal 30,000 Europeans, about 40,000 Asiatics, and 400,000 Natives. It is an oligarchy in the strongest sense of the word, and I do not think that oligarchy ought to he extended. I think that if the Government wish to take the responsibility of the administration of Zululand they should not seek to make it over to Natal. I suppose that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) has told us, he has not made over New Guinea to Queensland, á fortiori he will say he has not made over Zululand to Natal, because he has not gone quite so far. I say at once you have not gone quite so far; but the Natal Colonists are covetous of Zululand; and I think that when we have gone so far as to say that the Governor of Natal is to be assisted and advised in the administration of Zululand by an Executive Council of Natal, the majority of which are elected Members, we have entered on a course which must probably result in the annexation of Zululand to Natal. I say that the Government of Natal is, in the strictest sense of the word, an oligarchy. There is a considerable Indian population there. Up to some years ago a few of that Indian population were entitled to vote. The Natal Legislature got alarmed at so many people of colour having the vote, and under the guise of reform a law was passed by which three-fourths of the Indian voters were deprived of the franchise. I am sorry to say that the Government for the time being were base enough to allow the law to pass, and thus make the Natal Government a very much tighter and narrower oligarchy than it was before. I totally object to handing over to this oligarchical Government control of Zululand.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item C —Salary, Zululand—be reduced by £150, part of the allowance to the Governor of Natal, as Special Commissioner in Zululand."—(Sir George Campbell.)

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute—in fact, I simply want to ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell), that it would be entirely wrong to allow such a country as Zululand to be annexed to Natal. From a study of the Blue Books, I have come to the conclusion that, so far from Zululand being annexed to Natal in the approximate future, it has been very carefully arranged that Zululand shall remain in the hands of the Imperial Government. With regard to the first question I wish to ask, let me say that I regard the Treaty recently concluded, by which we made over certain portions of Zululand to the new Republic and annexed the remainder, as a mistake. I think that this country has not done all it ought to have done in connection with Zululand. The question I wish to ask refers to the portion of the country which many who are familiar with the subject know as Proviso B. The Boers were allowed to settle there and hold certain farms. There is a great deal of feeling in connection with Proviso B; and many of us believe that that portion of the country, which is perhaps the richest part, and perhaps the most desirable for the purposes of farming, should have been retained for the Zulus. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) whether he anticipates at any time being able to out-purchase the Boers, not by throwing a burden on the taxpayers of this country, but, possibly, by incurring a debt in favour of the Zulus for that purpose? I am bound to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will give me a very favourable answer to my question. But I may, perhaps, remind him that, judging from the latest despatches, there is a considerable portion of this Proviso B which has not been occupied by the Boers. Could not the farms which have not been occupied by the Boers be made to revert to the Zulus? It is very important, if possible, that the Zulus should be able to reoccupy the farms which have not been occupied by the Boers, to whom they were originally allocated. Perhaps I may also ask a question in reference to that portion of Proviso B which includes the graves of the Kings. There have been negotiations with the new Republic; but I do not think any decisive answer has yet been given as to whether that portion of the country shall be given up to the Zulus or not. There is a considerable sentimental grievance in the minds of the Zulus about these graves. These are the only questions I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, because at this period of the Session I do not wish to prolong the discussion.

DR. CLARK

I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), because I think it will be a wise step to annex Zululand to Natal. At any rate, what we have done is to annex the Zulus to Natal, because 40 years ago there were only 30,000 Zulus in Natal; but now there are 300,000. The Zulus in Zululand number under 100,000; probably there are only 80,000 there. If you want to get a large number of the Zulus back into Zululand, the best way in which you can do it is to annex Zululand to Natal, because Natal is simply a portion of Zululand. Now, as to the policy involved in the annexation of Zululand, I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) that we were practically compelled to annex Zululand, or else to suffer the Zulus to be wiped out. Under the circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) has acted wisely in not proclaiming a Protectorate, but in practically annexing the country. I differed from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) when he raised this question some time ago, and I wish to express now the view I then desired to express. I think we were compelled, after crushing and breaking down the power of Cetewayo, and refusing to support Dinizulu, to take over the country, or that portion of the country not occupied by the Boer settlers. I do not think the solution arrived by Sir Arthur Havelock is the best for the Zulus. In a former debate I pointed out one or two objections to the course taken by Sir Arthur Havelock. Of course, one cannot get over the difficulty unless by reopening the question. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland), who has long been a friend of the Aborigines, would have re-opened the question, especially in regard to the North-Eastern section of the country where Cetewayo's brother has been, and where there are no White settlers. The question which now arises is, what is the future of Zululand to be? The first thing to do is to secure land to the Natives. I hope a Committee will be appointed for the purpose of doing in Zululand what the Boers have done in the Transvaal. I hope you will vest in all the various tribes in Zululand their land, and give them boundaries. I hope you will not allow any White men to acquire any land in Zululand except for a limited period of time, and that the land will be vested in Commissioners for the tribes. The probability is you will have to do something to ease Natal from the great burden of the emigration of Natives into the country. With regard to Proviso B, let me say you have recognized the title of the new Republic, and that whether a man occupies his farm or not the farm is his. The very raising of the question of buying the man out makes the thing impossible. The most important question of all is the reserving of the land to the Natives. Unless something is done, the land will, of course, be got in the usual way, and the Zulus will be robbed of it, as South Africans and others have been robbed of their land before. I hope to hear something from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to what he is going to do to protect the Zulus in their rights and to get the Zulus back to Zululand.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what has been done in reference to Usibepu? He was an ally of ours, and yet we allowed the opposite Party to crush him by means of the Boers. I believe he is now a fugitive in our territory.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The case of Usibepu is under the consideration of the Government, and they are waiting for a further Report from Sir Arthur Havelock. They have offered him a salary, and the question now is whether the Chief can have any territory besides. I am unable to give a further answer at present, but the matter is receiving consideration. In answer to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I would point out that a Question as to relieving Natal of the Natives is going to be put to me on Thursday or Friday. Many of the Natives who have crossed into Natal during the existence of previous troubles will now, no doubt, be willing to return to Zululand. The Government, however, are not prepared to assent to any organized scheme of return on the part of the Natives, without its being submitted to Sir Arthur Havelock, and without first seeing that there is sufficient territory, so that the Natives at present in the country may not be cramped. As to the annexation of Natal, I can assure the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that he is labouring under a misapprehension as to the real state of the case. The desire of the Zulus on that point has been ascertained, and it is found that they do not wish to be brought under Natal laws. It is not, therefore, intended that they should be annexed to Natal. I do not know whether the hon. Member has looked at the Regulations which have been published by Sir Arthur Havelock, as Governor of Zululand, under the powers vested in him by his Commission. But I am satisfied that if the hon. Member examines them he will see that the Natives have been carefully protected. In the first place, by Regulation 32, Native Chiefs in Zululand will have original jurisdiction according to the Native Law in all civil and criminal cases between Natives and their own tribes. I fully recognize the importance of the Land Question; but it will be found by reference to the Regulations that the right of allotting land is vested in the Governor, and that he has power to appoint a Commission for the purpose of marking off boundaries, and so forth. This will satisfy the hon. Member, as showing that the Government have very carefully protected the Natives, and especially on the burning question of the land. A Commission can, and probably will, be appointed to examine into these very questions. As to Proviso B, I have stated more than once, and the despatches in the Blue Books show, that Her Majesty's Government have given that question their very anxious and careful consideration. It is impossible to turn out the Boers from that part of Proviso B, because they have thoroughly established themselves there and have good titles, which the Government have undertaken to uphold. With regard to the Zulus in that district, Her Majesty's Government have to make the best bargain they can, and, as far as possible, see that any lights the Zulus have are protected. Although there was at first a great feeling against Proviso B among the Zulu Chiefs, the last Report I had was that that feeling is subsiding, and we may now trust that no difficulties will arise in regard to Proviso B. I agree that if we propose any such plan as buying out the Boers, we should find the prices of the farms rise to a very large price indeed. Her Majesty's Government have done their best to secure, as far as possible, that the graves of the Chiefs should be respected. Those graves are not the graves of the great Chiefs of the present Zulu people, as was at first supposed. Sir Arthur Havelock dealt with the whole subject in his Despatch of May 6, 1887, in which he said that the graves were those of Chiefs who held a comparatively subordinate position with regard to Chiefs of larger tribes; but he thought it desirable, and so do Her Majesty's Government, that measures should be taken to secure due respect to these burial places.

COMMANDER BETHELL

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the unoccupied land.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman means land that has been unoccupied?

COMMANDER BETHELL

I refer to the farms in Proviso B. The new Republic has intimated by some law that the rights of the men who have not taken up the farms will lapse. I should like to know to whom the land will go?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I have not had that question finally brought before me for decision, but I have little or no hesitation in saying that the land would go back to the Zulus.

MR. KIMBER (Wands worth)

I should like to re-assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell). I happened to be travelling in Natal and Zululand at the time this Treaty was being negotiated, and I can testify to the careful and anxious consideration given to all the points, especially to those which affected the interests of the Natives by the Government. It is certainly satisfactory to note that when all the lands have been allotted to the Boers, as well as all the lands in Proviso B, they are very much less in total than the quantity of lands claimed by the Boers. Sir Arthur Havelock has been very helpless in this matter, because the lands claimed by the Boers were given to them by the Chiefs in Zululand themselves. It would come to this, that we should have to exert physical force to compel the rescission of a contract entered into between parties who were sui juris. Under all the circumstances, therefore, although the partition of Zululand is not that which Englishmen would like to see come about, still I think it is one that, on the whole, may be considered to have resulted well for this country.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I am glad to hear the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I think, however, he will agree with me that, looking at the Despatches, I was justified in falling into the view I took of the arrangements made for the management of the affairs of Zululand. As I understand Zululand is to be kept independent, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

DR. CLARK

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the question of sending Usibepu back to Zululand. If he is sent back it will mean civil war. I trust the Government will be content with giving him a pension. The great bulk of the people were not satisfied with the annexation; the King's brothers and sons, and many Chiefs were all opposed to it.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

They have all assented to it now.

DR. CLARK

They have all gone into the new Republic.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

No; they have all come out of it.

DR. CLARK

I think it would be better to give Usibepu a pension or land in the Reserve, but do not let him go back to his own country, or it will simply mean more trouble. Now, with regard to Natal let me say this, it has the best history of all British Colonies in respect to the treatment of Natives. My only complaint is that the Natives have been treated too gingerly, because there are such Native customs yet permitted as the buying and selling of wives.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Under Sub-head D, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500, being part of the personal allowance to the High Commissioner. I may say at once that there is no man of whom I have a higher opinion than I have of Sir Hercules Robinson. I have not the smallest wish to reduce his pay, and I have only made this Motion with the object of obtaining information from the Government with regard to the passing of a law by which it is alleged the vast portion of the Natives of the Cape Colony are disenfranchised.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The Act to which he is now referring is a Cape Act and has nothing to do with Bechuanaland. The only Vote we are now considering is the salary of Sir Hercules Robinson. As Governor of Bechuanaland he gets no salary; but gets an allowance for expenses, which is what the hon. Gentleman probably wishes to reduce.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

The right hon. Gentleman has me there.

DR. CLARK

I see there is an item of £500 for cable messages sent by the High Commissioner. I think it would be better if some discretion were used in regard to these cable messages.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I think it is rather hard that any observations should be made upon this item, especially when we have reduced the cost of cable telegrams to £1,500.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

The Amendment I have next to move is a more serious one than the last; it is to reduce the Vote by £50,000, part of the grant for Bechuanaland, and I bring it before Her Majesty's Government in the hope that I may obtain from them some information with regard to their policy in that country. When we went to Bechuanaland we had no settled policy; we drifted into our position there, and I am anxious to discover whether we have a settled policy now that we are there. Now, although there maybe a reduction in the Vote this year, still the Vote is very large, and the position is such as to involve very grave risk in the future. We do not know whether in the future it may not amount to millions, and therefore I think it desirable that we should have some information from the Government as to their policy. Bechuanaland is not only a very large territory in itself, but its margin is almost illimitable; and, as was the other day stated at the meeting of the British Association, "Men informed on the subject are utterly without intelligence as to the boundaries of Bechuanaland." The attitude taken up by this country must, if persisted in, inevitably lead to the establishment of a great British Empire in the interior of Africa; and I want to know what are the objects with which we hold this territory—whether Her Majesty's Government propose further extension or otherwise? "We went to Bechuanaland, I believe, to do justice to Montsioa and Mankoroane in the first place; and, secondly, with the desire to establish a trade route through the country with the Cape. Certainly the assistance we gave the Chiefs has been of a very strange and unsatisfactory kind, for, on turning to the Blue Books, I find that their pages are covered with the complaints of Mankoroane and Montsioa, who are very dissatisfied with the way in which they have been treated. In fact, instead of establishing these Chiefs, whom we went there to protect, we have reduced them to the position of British subjects; we have taken most of their land, and reduced them to the condition of occupants, of reserves as in other Colonies. I am not at all surprised at their complaining of the treatment they have received. It is rather hard that these men should have been dealt with thus; they were depicted as virtuous Native Chiefs, and yet we have reduced them to the position I have described. Hence these pitiful complaints, and hence it is that Montsioa has alleged, with or without truth, that the Europeans have been "worse than a bad neighbour to him." Again, the trade route with the Cape Colony is not in a real sense an Imperial interest, and I am very much inclined to protest against the heavy cost laid on the British taxpayer in order to maintain our influence in this part of the world. It seems to me, that if we interfere we must make up our minds for the establishment of our dominion in Central Africa, and take upon ourselves the responsibility of administering that part of the country. I hope, therefore, we shall learn something from Her Majesty's Government as to their real intentions with regard to Bechuanaland, and, with that object, I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £50,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the balance of the Vote is only £48,000.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Then I will move the reduction of the Vote by £40,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E—Grant in Aid, British Bechuanaland — be reduced by £40,000."—(Sir George Campbell.)

DR. CLARK

I am afraid I must take up a few minutes in making some remarks on this important, question. If the British Government and Imperial Parliament will take upon themselves the government of large numbers of people, we must be prepared to give some little time, at any rate, to the consideration of their needs. Some very important decisions have been come to with regard to this territory, and there is no doubt some basis for the complaints made by some of the Chiefs. The Land Commission has given its Report, and it refers to three classes of interests which are involved—first, the interests of the Stellalanders; secondly, British interests; and, thirdly, the interests of the Natives. Now, as far as the Stellalanders are concerned, they have very little to complain of; they have practically got the best part of Bechuanaland, They had it with a restriction with regard to water rights, and they are leaving the country in consequence, but, as I have said, they have little or nothing to complain of; with regard to British interests they have been very scurvily treated; but, passing from that subject, I will come to the third, and most important, part of the question, I can assure the right hon. Baronet that I am no friend of Montsioa, whom I believe I characterized last year as a "bloodthirsty rascal;" but I wish to point out with regard to Mankoroane's people, that they have not got enough land to live upon comfortably if they are going to live as they have in the past. Of course, I know that, to a large extent, the Commission could not help itself in this matter; but the fact remains that Mankoroane's garden ground has been given to the Stellalanders; they are there, and you cannot get them out of it. Although a portion of the land has been given away, there is still a portion which has not been given away available; and as I have said, as far as these people are concerned, if they are to live as they have in the past, more land will be wanted by them. The present position of Members of this House when they ask Questions of the Government is very unsatisfactory, and it may be illustrated by a circumstance in connection with Montsioa, who complained that a European town had been placed near his territory. Now, when I was at the Cape, last year, I found that this town was just 700 yards away from Montsioa's land; but the answer given in this House, when the matter came up in the form of a Question, was that it was two miles away from the place. We have taken away land for town purposes; the town is large and rapidly growing; and it will probably become a large mining centre. The poor Barolongs will probably be wiped out. These people have been agriculturists; but they have not now enough land or enough water— what land they have, owing to the want of water, is rendered practically useless. Now, one thing has taken place lately to which I strongly object, and that is the taking away of Border farms for the purpose of giving them to the Constabulary. I formed a good opinion of the Beehuanaland Police when I was at the Cape, and I do not think the Irish Police were superior to them; as a matter of fact, these were not so much a police force as a military force under Sir Charles Warren. However, to take away this land, give it to policemen, and and then allow them to hand it over to substitutes, is an act which I cannot but regard as a very great blunder, because you are simply taking away land which will be required by the Barolongs. The condition of Bechuanaland is very unsatisfactory. You are going to spend out of the £91,000 advanced £78,000, or nine-tenths of the money, for the maintenance of the Border police, who, I think, at the present time, are not wanted, however much they might have been when Bechuanaland was taken away from the Transvaal—when the men who had farms lost them and became outcasts, and were told to get compensation from the Transvaal Government. But the men who were then troublesome have left the place years ago, and are now gold diggers 500 or 600 miles away; and there is no possibility or chance of their causing further trouble. There is, therefore, no necessity for keeping up this very expensive police force; and I suggest, as there has been nothing done for Bechuanaland in the way of schools and other matters necessary to progress, that the money now spent on the police should be applied for other purposes which would tend to the development of the country. Our Administrator, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, is doing his best, no doubt, under the circumstances; but he has combined two offices which ought to be kept quite distinct—namely, those of Deputy Governor and Judge. In the latter capacity he decided privately a case brought before him upon evidence got outside. What we want in this country is not to have a man acting at the same time both as civil magistrate and administrator; we want these offices discharged by different persons. I hope that next year we shall not be called upon to spend any more money on the police force, and that if you are to spend money on Bechuanaland at all it will be for the development of the resources of the country, unless you are going to change your policy and hand it over to the Cape Colony. I think we ought to lay down some definite lines of policy with regard to these countries, and endeavour to carry them out; and I have suggested the desirability of appointing a Commission, with the object of trying to bring together the different Colonies in a Customs Union, and that some form of confederation should be given, although I am aware that some of my hon. Friends were opposed to the idea, because it was believed that the Government would send out men of the Exeter Hall type. If this is to be done, the sooner it is done the better, because I know that the Dutch and English have a common aim and object, and I think might help each other in developing civilization. At any rate, I hope that we shall see before long a more complete fusion than exists at present in these South African lands.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I agree with the hon. Member that a final settlement of South African affairs can best be effected by the hearty co-operation of the Republics, the Cape and Natal, and Her Majesty's Government; but I think that the first step in bringing about such co-operation ought to come from the other side of the water. Any movement from this country would be viewed with jealousy. Her Majesty's Government would be most anxious to work heartily in that direction if any such offer were made to them. The observations which the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to schools and improvements in Bechuanaland shall receive my best consideration. As regards the slaves, that question has not been brought before me; but I will, of course, make inquiries on the subject. The hon. Member has expressed his belief that the police are of little or no use, and that their numbers might be very largely diminished. I differ entirely from the hon. Member as to the use of the police. I believe that they are of the greatest service in maintaining law and order. But I am glad to be able to state that a considerable diminution of the force has taken place. The police have been reduced from 500 to 300 officers and men in April last, and I hope it will be further reduced to about 200 officers and men by the 1st of October next. A sum at the rate of £18,492 will be saved by these reductions. I attach the highest importance to the police farms along the frontier, and I believe that they not only are useful in keeping peace along the frontier, but that they enable the force to be reduced, as I have before stated.

DR. CLARK

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nine-tenths of these farms are held by substitutes, who are generally Boers?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The men or their substitutes are obliged to come out.

DR. CLARK

They are serving now and getting pay as policemen.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I am not aware that such is the case. It is in this way that the savings to which I have referred have been effected. I believe that at the present time there is no feeling on the part of Montsioa against these farmers on the frontier. Possibly a certain amount of hardship has been inflicted by the invasion of Europeans; but I should like to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that if it had not been for our intervention Montsioa and Mankoroane would have been wiped out by the Boers. At the time the new Republics were started by the Boers in the territories of these Chiefs no attempt was made by previous Governments to stop their proceedings. During a previous debate on the subject a strong protest was made in the House of Commons on behalf of the Chiefs who had been faithful allies of this country, and it was pointed out that unless steps were taken they would be entirely swept away. It was owing to that strong opposition that the Government of the day, the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Glad- stone), did then somewhat reluctantly intervene to secure a certain amount of territory for these people. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has asked what the views of the Government are with respect to the retention of the country. The Government propose to retain what they have. They do not propose to hand over Bechuanaland to anyone. The question as to whether the Government are prepared to accept the extension which Sir Charles Warren at one time advocated to the Zambesi is one of very great difficulty. As at present advised, however, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take any further steps to extend the Protectorate beyond its present limits. I do not think it possible to give any further pledge to the House, because the position of affairs in those countries changes so frequently, and difficulties crop up of a very complicated character. The Government feel that if they accept Sir Charles Warren's views and extend the Protectorate to the Zambesi they may find themselves in a difficulty, as to questions which may arise respecting boundaries of the Chiefs Khama and Lo Bengula. The Government therefore propose to reta in what they have, and, unless forced to do so, to take no more. As to the complaints of Montsioa and Mankoroane in the Blue Books, I say concessions have been made, and I do not believe at the present time either Chief has any real cause for grumbling.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I am afraid I am not much wiser as regards the future policy of Her Majesty's Government by what we have been told. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to extend this territory if they can help it. With regard to the case of Montsioa and Mankoroane, I must say it is very much worse than I supposed it to be. It is emphatically stated by the right hon. Gentleman that these allies of ours are about to be improved off the face of the earth because, as he tells us, they have been deprived of their land for mining purposes.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I did not say so. The hon. Member entirely misrepresents what I said.

DR. CLARK

In Bechuanaland we interfered when it was too late; in Zululand we did the same. Let me point out that this question of the White man going North and the Black man going South requires regulation. You have Tongaland, where the same thing may occur, and you have Swaziland and other territories to which adventurers are going. Then there is the question of the boundary between the territory of one of the most powerful Chiefs in South Africa, and the territory of the most Northern tribe of Bochuanas. The time has come when you should lay down conditions to let all White adventurers know that though you whitewashed some of their class in Bechuanaland and Zululand, you will not for the future recognize their doings. You should let them know that it is your intention to interfere in the early stages and not when interference can do no good.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8) £1,000, to complete the sum for Cyprus, Grant in Aid.

MR. CONYBEARE

I just want to ask one question in reference to this Vote. I have been looking at the Report, and it appears from the statement therein contained that the revenue of Cyprus is £ 170,000 odd, and the expenditure 111,000, leaving a surplus of £61,000, odd. The subsidy we have to pay to Turkey is £92,745, which leaves a balance to be provided for elsewhere than out of the revenue we receive from the Island of £31,712. The Vote asked for in the Estimates is only £18,000, and I confess it is not clear to my mind where the difference comes from. However, that is not the most important point to which I want to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, or, rather, to ask information upon. What I desire to know is whether these payments which we have to make to Turkey are to go on for ever, or whether they are limited to any particular term? Are they to go on increasing or decreasing—can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Island will be of the slightest value to us financially, or can he say whether the burden imposed on this country will continue in the future as it has been in the past? I presume that the Island has been a sort of a military depot, but I have not seen in the Report any statement as to their being any soldiers there. I make that remark in passing. I do not go into the question of the finances of the Island. So far as I have been able to master the Report, it seems there is nothing to complain of as to the prosperity and general development of the Island, and the only point I desire to raise, with the view of getting information, is as to whether the revenues are likely to be a source of income to us, or whether the occupation of the Island will be a prolonged drain on the resources of the country?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

I am afraid my reply and explanation must be somewhat lengthy, but I think they will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. It must not be overlooked that there are two series of transactions involved in this question of Cyprus. These are entirely distinct transactions entered into at different times and for reasons quite unconnected with each other. One is, the series of transactions arising out of the insolvency of Turkey, and our joint guarantee with France of the interest of the Turkish Loan of 1855, amounting to £3,815,000. Each country has to pay about £40,872 a-year interest. There are also other debts due from Turkey to us. The other series of transactions is the occupation of Cyprus in 1878, before Turkey stopped payment, which took place in 1879. Our implications in Turkish matters in respect of loan and debts have caused the English Government a loss, up to date, of about £336,000—namely—

	£
Seven years interest on our half of the Loan	286,000
Various bad debts due from Turkey (Synge and Suter ransoms), &c.say	50,000
	£336,000

We made this loss whether we took Cyprus or not, and Cyprus cannot be debited with it in any way. But what has been the result of our taking-Cyprus? We have made a profit of about £109,000, and so far recouped our loss after paying for France the whole of her liability on seven years interest. This was paid because we have laid hold of the tribute money—£92,000, which was due from Cyprus to Turkey. The yearly account stands thus—

	£	£
Cyprus has paid to England		682,000
Deduct grants in aid	287,000
Payments for France — seven years interest	286,000
	573,000	573,000
		£109,000

It is urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), who is unfortunately not able to be here this evening, that these Grants in Aid should cease, and be made as loans which Cyprus should repay. But if the present position is understood there is no ground for this contention. Cyprus has an annual surplus of £65,000 (taking an average of last three years), which is paid to England. To this is added an annual Grant in Aid to make up the surplus of Island Revenue over expenditure to £92,000, the approximate amount of tribute. The exact amount of the grant is decided annually by the Treasury on a review of the cash balances of the Island Government and is, therefore, affected by advances, deposits, and other temporary financial transactions not belonging to revenue or expenditure. The Cyprus Government having thus made up the £92,000 out of the surplus Revenue and Grants in Aid, pays the amount over to the Paymaster General, and the Treasury gives a receipt for it on behalf of Turkey. But instead of paying it to Turkey, England lays hands upon it, and appropriates it to make good the debts of Turkey for which England and France are responsible as guarantors. As Turkey could not, or would not pay, this appropriation is pure gain to the guarantors. It thus appears that the Grants in Aid are no benefit to Cyprus, but only book transactions that the Treasury may not have to put each year an item in Estimates under heading "Interest on Turkish Loan in 1855 now in default." Cyprus now cedes the whole of its surplus to England, exactly as it would have done in former times to the Turkish Government. It cannot do more. There is no reason for making Cyprus repay grants which merely pass through the Cyprus books, as a matter of account, and which the Cyprus Government does not retain. Nor, is there in fact the slightest likelihood that Cyprus over could repay the £287,000 thus nominally granted. I hope I have made it clear that we are not such losers by Cyprus as is generally supposed; and that Cyprus gains no benefit by these Grants in Aid. I have put out of consideration the amounts which have been paid by this country for mail services and military expenditure, as these were made for Imperial purposes and are not fairly chargeable to Cyprus.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

Is interest charged for the Grants in Aid? That is the point the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) based his objection on. He objected to these advances being treated as Grants in Aid and not as loans,

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I have listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I must say it appears to me to be a very satisfactory one. It shows that the financial arrangements are better than the country would have believed. It seems, however, that France gets a better share in these transactions than we do, because, instead of having taken possession of Cyprus and being responsible for its condition financially and otherwise, she gets her £40,000 direct from the Cyprus Government. She would otherwise have got nothing from Turkey for her share of the interest on the loan, and the result of the arrangement is that she is relieved from a burden which otherwise would have fallen upon her. We, having taken Cyprus, are able to recoup ourselves, not to the extent of the whole of the £40,000, but to that sum minus the Grant in Aid. All I can say is, that the arrangement explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland), and which I do not think has ever been fully explained to us before, shows that the acquisition of Cyprus is not so disastrous a matter as it formerly appeared. The right hon. Gentleman shows us that we are not called upon annually to pay the large amount which otherwise we should have had to pay, by reason of our being able to lay hold of the money which Cyprus would otherwise have had to pay to Turkey in aid of the amount which this country guaranteed on the Turkish Loan. It appears, as I say, that the arrange- ment has been more satisfactory to France than to us. I presume that if we did not pay this £40,000 to France it would go directly into the Turkish revenue, and not come to us.

Vote agreed to.