§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would object to lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions given to Sir Henry Loch for his interview with President Kröger and Mr. Rhodes at Blijnants Point on the Vaal River; if he knows and can say by whom Mr. Rhodes was accredited; if he will lay before the House any correspondence which has taken place between the Cape Government, the Orange Free State, the British South African Company, and the South African Republic, with reference to the construction of the railroad from Kimberley to Warrenton; whether it is true that President Kröger has expressed himself as favourable to the extension of the railroad from Bluem-frontein to Johannesberg; whether it is true that the natives and missionaries in Swaziland have repeatedly protested against being placed under the Government of the South African Republic, as have also the concessionaires of mining-rights and the persons interested in the Sorowann Bay Railway; for what reason the benefits of a British Protectorate that have been extended to Makololo and Nyassaland are refused to Swaziland; and whether the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing Sir Francis de Winton's recommendations respecting the fate of Swaziland before they are actually carried out?
§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, WestminsterPerhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer him. I will reply to the questions categorically: (1) There are no Instructions which can be given to Parliament. We have only telegraphic communications on the subject of this meeting. (2) President Kröger suggested that Mr. Rhodes should be present. (3) Portions only have been received of this correspondence, which must be voluminous, and probably could not in great part be given to Parliament. (4) We have no information which can be added to the statement to that effect 1138 contained in the Press telegrams. (5) The natives have urged that the independence of Swaziland should be maintained, and many such protests as are referred to in this question have been made by white residents and others, but there has been "considerable difference of opinion on the subject among the whites." (6) It would be a breach of Article 12 of the Convention of 1884 to establish a British Protectorate in Swaziland without the consent of the South African Republic. (7) It has been repeatedly stated this Session that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to delay action until Sir F. de Winton's Report has been discussed. I do not know whether I may take this opportunity of making an appeal to the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool on this subject. He has a notice on the Paper this evening with reference to the future government of Swaziland. As Her Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Transvaal Government with a view to effect a settlement of this question, I venture to appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed with his Motion, as it would considerably embarrass Her Majesty's Government if any statement were made in this House with reference to the negotiations which are still proceeding. I am in hopes that the result of these negotiations will be one satisfactory to all parties, and at the present moment I think it would be most unwise to discuss the question.
§ MR. O. V. MORGAN (Battersea)When will the Report of Sir F. de Winton be in the hands of Members?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHI am unable to say when it will be possible to present the Report to the House; it is impossible to do so during the progress of negotiations.