HC Deb 13 June 1899 vol 72 cc1059-61
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the cause of the delay in the transmission of Sir Alfred Milner's memorandum on the subject of the Bloemfontein Conference; and, if so, whether there is reason to believe that there was intentional interference with the prompt and regular despatch of such memorandum; can he state where the delay in the transmission of the message occurred: and whether he can explain the circumstances under which the representative of the Transvaal Government in Europe received information as to the proceedings at and the result of the Bloemfontein Conference before such information reached the Colonial Office.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Sir A. Milner's memorandum was at first communicated to Reuter's Agency, and was transmitted as a Press message, and not as a Government message. The delay in transmission was due to the partial interruption of the cable for repairs. I have no reason to believe that there was any intentional interference with its despatch. The message sent from the Transvaal was sent as a Government message, and so obtained priority. On learning that Reuter's message was delayed I instructed Sir A. Milner to have his memorandum sent as a Government message.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to a statement made in a Reuter telegram on Friday last no the effect that Sir Alfred Milner had acknowledged that Mr. Kruger's request for arbitration by other than foreign Powers on all points of future difference under the Convention was reasonable: and, when the official documents which throw light on what took place will be published.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I have received the following explanation from Sir Alfred Milner in regard to the statement to which the hon. Member's question relates: The President's statement referred to is an inference from what I said which I consider was not justified, and which I immediately corrected. My position on the subject is correctly summed up in the words of my telegram of the 6th instant, viz.:—'Arbitration had been mentioned during the Conference along with other matters, but no definite proposal on the subject was before his Excellency at the moment. On some questions Her Majesty's Government clearly could not arbitrate, and on no question would they ever agree to arbitration by Means of a foreign Government. At the same time there was a class of question about which Her Majesty's Government might agree to arbitrate if a suitable method could be found; if a proposal on that subject was submitted at any time it could be considered independently of any of the proceed- ings of this Conference. As already pointed out, His Excellency was not authorised to discuss this question, but any definite proposition which His Honour might make at any time would be submitted to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I distinctly stated that arbitration was not admissible on all questions of difference; and equally distinctly that on no question would arbitration by a foreign Power be admitted. As regards the President's position in the matter he never explained what he meant by arbitration, or made any definite proposal. On the other hand, I did certainly gather from the remark to which reference is made that he was prepared to abandon arbitration by foreign Powers. Since the Conference President Kruger has submitted a proposal on the subject of arbitration which contemplates that the president of the arbitral tribunal should be the foreigner. The official documents connected with the Bloemfontein Conference will be published as soon as possible after they are received.