HC Deb 14 June 1894 vol 25 cc1092-3
SIR C. W. DILKE

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German protest against the Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Sovereign of the Congo State, instead of being confined to the two points already named in the House, also takes the same ground as the French protest on the point that the Congo State, being the creature of a general European Agreement, cannot extend its frontiers northwards beyond the fourth parallel of latitude without a similar previous general European Agreement; and whether any protest has now been received from Turkey?

*SIR E. GREY

A protest has been received from the German Government since the answer given on this subject a few days ago. But the reasons given for this protest by the German Government deal solely with the right of the Congo State to cede the territory defined in Article 3, and do not touch the question of an extension of its frontiers northwards at all. The contention of the German Government is that the stipulations, as they interpret them, of Article 3 of the Agreement of the 12th of May require the sanction of Germany. No protest against the Agreement has been received from Turkey. The only communication has been a verbal one from the Turkish Ambassador with reference to the reported British occupation of Wadelai, to the effect that the Porte consider Wadelai as still forming an integral portion of the Egyptian possessions, and that the occupation by a British force could not in any way modify their views.

*SIR C. W. DILKE

Is there any German protest made to the Sovereign of the Congo State communicated to the Government apart from the protest delivered here?

SIR E. GREY

The first correspondence between the German Government and the Congo State was what I promised the other day to lay upon the Table. I cannot say what else has passed since then.