§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have now received the words of President Kruger's speech, in which, at the German banquet on 26th January, he repudiated the suzerainty of the Queen; whether the Boer President then said that he came to England in 1884, and that the then British Government had the suzerainty altered; that previously the Boer President could not enter into any treaties with other countries without Her Majesty's consent, but that the British Government in 1884 altered the Treaty and relinquished the suzerainty; whether the Queen's suzerainty has been abrogated in any Treaty or public document; and whether Her Majesty's Government have sent a formal protest against these assertions of President Krüger?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONWe have received the local newspapers containing reports of President Krüger's speech of January 26th. As regards the question of suzerainty, it is a somewhat doubtful question as to what extent the suzerainty, created under the Convention of 1881, was continued by the Convention of 1884. But the matter is not one of much importance, inasmuch as the essence of the suzerainty was contained in Clause 4 of the Convention of 1884, 38 which deals with the external relations of the South African Republic. This clause remains in full and effective force; and, as I have stated on two occasions lately in the House, under Article 4 of the London Convention of 1884, the South African Republic, as regards its foreign relations, is, and remains, within the sphere of British influence, and can conclude no Treaty or engagement with any state or nation (with the exception of the Orange Free State) until the same has been submitted to Her Majesty the Queen for Her approval. This statement, made in the House of Commons and on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, appears to us to be a sufficient notice of President Kruger's speech made on the social occasion in question.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERasked, whether any compensation had been paid to British subjects resident in the Transvaal who were commandeered and sent to the front on the authority of the Boer Government?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he did not think this arose out of the question. If the hon. Member would give notice of the matter he would attend to it.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid the hon. Gentleman had not answered whether the Queen's suzerainty had been abrogated by any Treaty or public document.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONrepeated that it was a matter of doubt whether the Convention of 1884 had not superseded the preamble and the clauses of the Convention of 1881.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)Does not the hon. Gentleman know whether there is a suzerainty or not?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI have already stated the question about which there is doubt. But, as regards the practical question, really the only matter of any importance is fully confirmed by Clause 4 of the Convention of 1884, which we certainly intend to uphold.