MR. J. W. LOWTHERI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Agreements relating to East African affairs made between the Governments of France and Great Britain, dated the 8th of February, 1888, and made between the Governments of Italy and Great Britain on the 5th of May, 1894, have been presented to Parliament; and, if not, whether there is any objection to their being presented?
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)At the same time, I will ask the hon. Baronet whether the Anglo-French Convention entered into on the 30th of May, 1888, which appears in The Times of the 30th of May, has ever been presented to the House; and, if not, whether it will be presented; whether this Convention conflicts in any way with the Anglo-Italian Harar Treaty; whether a new Convention was signed with Italy on the 5th of May, 1894; whether this country has been a party to any other Conventions which have not been presented to this House; and, if so, whether they will be presented; whether the British sphere of influence extends within the frontiers of the State of Darfur, as laid down in the map of Africa exhibited in the Tea Room; and whether he will submit to this House, in one Blue Book, all the Conventions and Protocols entered into by Her Majesty's Government and any other European Powers, and all Conventions and Protocols entered into between Continental European Powers, connected with the partition of Africa into spheres of influence, or the letting by one European Power to another European Power of any portion of Africa, for facility of reference, and for a proper understanding by Members of this House of these matters?
§ *SIR E. GREYIn reply to the hon. Member for the Penrith Division, I have to say that the second of these Agreements was presented yesterday, and the former one, which is recorded in an exchange of Notes, can be laid imme- 174 diately, provided, as may be presumed, that the French Government do not object. In answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, I have to say that the Anglo-French Notes contain no provisions which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, conflict with the Convention recently concluded with the Italian Government in regard to Somaliland. We are not aware of any Conventions to which Great Britain has been a party in Africa which have not been presented to Parliament except the Anglo-French arrangement of 1888. If the boundaries given in the map are correct the British sphere would overlap a small portion of Darfur, but the southern limits of that Province have never been delimitated. There will be no objection to collecting in one volume the Arrangements to which Great Britain is a party in Africa, and such a volume would be useful for reference. But I cannot make the same promise with regard to Arrangements to which Great Britain is not a party, because the Arrangements are only occasionally communicated to Her Majesty's Government.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHERIs not Sir E. Hertslet's book likely soon to appear, and will it not contain all the information the hon. Member for Northampton is seeking?
§ SIR E. GREYI cannot say exactly when it will appear, but when it does appear I am sure it will be found one of the most useful books of reference ever placed in the Library of the House. The hon. Member could not do better than consult it.
§ *COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)Was the claim of France to a right of preemption over the Congo State communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and will that communication be included in the Papers?
§ SIR E. GREYNo, Sir, that is one of the Agreements to which Great Britain has not been a party, and I cannot make any statement with regard to it. The Agreement we have made with the King of the Belgians is so worded that it shall not affect in any way any rights that France may have.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)May I ask whether the Government made any distinction in the claim of Great Britain with regard to the British sphere and the claim of Egypt 175 with regard to the Egyptian sphere between Darfur and Equatoria?
§ SIR E. GREYAs far as we know, the limits of Darfur have never been delimitated. I have endeavoured to give the most accurate information in my power, but it is difficult when limits have not been defined to give definite information to the House.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINWhat I want to know is—is there any difference in the rights of Egypt over Darfur and Equatoria? Assuming that Egypt has some rights over Darfur which it is necessary to preserve, has she not the same rights over Equatoria?
§ SIR E. GREYI do not think I have committed myself to any definition, but whatever those rights are they have been reserved.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREAre those rights reserved in the portion of territory which has been lent to the Congo State?
§ SIR E. GREYIn the Agreement we were unable to define what the rights of Egypt were, and we inserted the reservation in general terms.