§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the Swazi Queen Regent and Council have refused to issue the Organic Proclamation handing their country over to Boer rule, and have thrown themselves upon the protection of the British Government; (2) whether the Boers have the right, under the Convention of December 1894, to use force to compel the submission of the Swazis; and (3) whether Her Majesty's Government will permit our Swazi allies, whose independence Great Britain has affirmed in three solemn Conventions, to be forcibly subjugated by the Boers.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe Swazi Queen Regent and Council on the 15th inst., at their meeting, declined to sign the draft Organic Proclamation recommended for their acceptance. They asserted that they belonged to the Queen, a statement which is entirely incorrect; as Her Majesty's Government are precluded by Treaty engagements from declaring a Protectorate over Swaziland. Under the Convention of 1894 the South African Republic will be responsible for peace and order in Swaziland. Her Majesty's Government trust that the Swazis will be wisely and prudently guided by the white men who have assumed the responsibility of advising them, and that they will peacefully accept a settlement in which Her Majesty's Government have been careful to safeguard all Native interests. As regards the third question I do not admit the assumption on which it is based; I endeavoured to explain to the House 1107 the other day, that the allegation that the Independence of Swaziland was guaranteed to the Swazis is unfounded. Under the Convention in question the two Powers interested each pledged itself to the other not to interfere in Swaziland without the assent of the other. As a matter of fact the independence of the Swazis has practically ceased to exist since 1888. I would point out that under the new Convention, Swaziland is not incorporated in the South African Republic; and that the King of Swaziland will remain Paramount Chief of the Swazis in Swaziland with the usual powers of such Paramount Chief. The management of the internal affairs of the Natives shall be in accordance with their own laws and customs, and the Native laws and customs will be administered by the Native Chiefs entitled to administer the same, in so far as the said laws and customs are not inconsistent with civilised laws and customs; and the Natives are guaranteed in their continued use and occupation of land now in their possession, and of all grazing or agricultural rights to which they are at present entitled. Further, a special officer will be appointed by the South African Republic to administer Swaziland who will be selected in communication with the High Commissioner. Finally, a British Consul will be appointed to reside in Swaziland.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)asked—(1) whether, in the event of the Boers using force to subjugate our former allies, Her Majesty's Government would permit British subjects or persons of English birth to be forcibly trepanned and compelled to take part in the military operations against their will, as was the case on a recent occasion; and (2) whether, in the event of British subjects offering armed assistance to the Swazis in the protection of their liberties, they would be violating any Act of Parliament.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe last paragraph of the question involves a legal matter which I could not deal with without notice. The rest of the question is purely hypothetical, and the hon. Member would hardly expect me to answer the points raised seriatim. As to whether British subjects will be commandeered for any expedition against the Swazis or anyone else, the hon. Member must be fully aware that under 1108 the terms of the Convention which we have negotiated with the South African Republic British subjects are practically exempt from compulsory commandeering.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERDo I understand, then, that prior to the Convention it would have been within the power of the Boers legally to commandeer British subjects.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI do not think this arises out of the original question. If the hon. Member wants information, I may say that, until the new Convention, which we negotiated the other day, British subjects were liable to be commandeered, but by the Convention they are now exempted.
§ SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked whether the Convention required any ratification, and, if so, whether it had been ratified by the Volksraad?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONIt will ultimately require ratification by the Volksraad, but we have the assurances not only of President Kruger, but of the Volksraad, that the Convention, which has been signed, will come into force and remain in force until ratified by the Volksraad, which ratification we expect will take place in a month or so.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the Government of Great Britain was precluded by Treaty from protecting the Swazis or assuming a Protectorate over them?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThat is so. In March 1890, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, then Leader of the House, was questioned on the subject, and he said it would be a breach of Article 12 of the Convention of 1884 to establish a British Protectorate over Swaziland without the consent of the South African Republic.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the Boers were not equally bound by the Conventions of 1881 and 1884 not to interfere with the independence of the Swazis?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONCertainly. They are bound not to interfere without the assent of Her Majesty's Government.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether in view of the statement just made, and the fact that the freedom of some 70,000 people was now at stake, the British Government would allow the Boers to subjugate Swaziland by force.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONIt is a hypothetical question, which, as I have already said, I cannot answer.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTMr. Deputy Speaker, I must press for an answer. The question is not hypothetical.