§ MR. SUMMERS (Huddersfield)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Cape Colony House of Assembly has, on the Motion of the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, unanimously passed a Resolution regretting that the Cape Government was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territory south of the Zambesi; and whether he is now in a position to state what was the nature of the communications that are alleged to have taken place between the Home Government and the Govern-men at the Cape, with reference to the matters dealt with in the Anglo-German Agreement, before that Agreement was made?
§ MR. CHANNING) (Northampton, E.I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the House of Assembly of the Cape Colony has unanimously passed the Motion submitted by the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, expressing regret that the Cape Colony was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territority south of the Zambesi River, and, further, that a Motion by Sir Thomas Uppington, to the effect that the colony would deeply resent any interference with the direct control of the Cape Parliament over the Walfisch Bay territory, was also unanimously passed; whether Her Majesty's Government have been made acquainted with the grounds on which the two Motions have been based, by any communications or protests from the Cape Government made prior to the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement, or up to the present time; whether he will state the nature of such communications or protests, if any, to the House; and whether he will now state to the House what provisions of the Anglo-German Agreement were 1740 laid before the Cape Government, and what provisions were withheld from the Cape Government, in the communications which ho has stated took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Colony Ministers before the signing of the Agreement.
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONI will ask to reply at the same time to the question in the name of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing). As regards the first paragraph of both questions we have no official knowledge. As to the second and third paragraphs, we have received no such communications or protests. As to the fourth paragraph the negotiations were conducted in London and Berlin; the High Commissioner's opinion was taken, as is stated in the Despatches published with the Agreements, on the questions of territory contiguous to the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland. The Cape Government was not a party to the negotiations, its territories were not affected by the Agreement, and the general provisions were not laid before it previously to the conclusion of the Agreement. It is not usual to consult a colony with respect to Treaty negotiations unless it is affected by them.
§ * MR. SUMMERSCan the right hon. Gentleman now state what was the nature of the communications which were alleged by the First Lord of the Treasury about a month ago to have taken place between the Home Government and the Government of the Cape Colony?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONCertain communications have passed with the High Commissioner; but, as was stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, they were not of a nature to be communicated to the House.
§ DR. CLARKIn the White Paper Report there is a reference to a transfer of territory in the Walfisch Bay. What is the territory referred to?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONThere is no question of the transfer of any territory in the Walfisch Bay district. The fact is that the territory there has never been defined. I stated quite distinctly that the Cape Colony had not been directly consulted.
§ DR. CLARKAre we to understand that, when determining the question of Walfisch Bay, the negotiations will be between Germany and the Cape Colony?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONI must ask for notice of the question.
§ MR. BUCHANAN) (Edinburgh, W.Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the delimitation of the German sphere into Damaraland does not vitally affect the question?
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSONI must also ask for notice of that question.
§ * MR. SUMMERSI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the nature of the communications which he asserts took place with the Cape Colony?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHThe hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. I said that communications had passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, the High Commissioner being Governor of the Cape; but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I did not state—at all events I did not intend to state—that communications had passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government.
§ * MR. SUMMERSMy question had reference to two points—the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, and the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly told me that communications had passed not only with the High Commissioner, but also with the Cape Government, and that they were of a confidential character, the effect of which it was not desirable to state because the negotiations were proceeding. Those negotiations have now concluded, and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state what the nature of those communications was?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHNo, Sir, I cannot.