Lords Sitting of 25 March 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Municipal Franchise (Scotland)* (55).
Third Reading—India Office (Sale of Superfluous Land)* (51), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— (THE NEGOTIATIONS)—THE 94TH REGIMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to an answer he had given yesterday to the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) with reference to the 94th Regiment. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that the noble Earl said that certain action that had taken place on the part of the Boer commanders, to which reasonable exception might be taken, and which would come generally under the head of "outrages and massacres," would be referred to the decision of the Commissioners to be appointed in South Africa. The noble Earl had gone on to say, however, that the massacre or destruction of the 94th Regiment would not be one of the points so referred, but that it would he covered by the amnesty. Whatever opinion he (Viscount Bury) himself might entertain as to that destruction, he did not wish to obtain from the Government any declaration of opinion upon the subject; but there were so many people who entertained the belief that the transaction in question was not a justifiable act of war, that considerable dissatisfaction would be occasioned if it were withdrawn from the consideration of the Commissioners.
  1924
  He should be sorry, therefore, if any words which had fallen from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be considered as pledging the Government to so withdraw the destruction of the 94th Regiment from the consideration of the Commissioners, and he, therefore, hoped that the noble Earl would be able to give an assurance that what lie had said yesterday was not to be taken as conveying such a pledge. Sir Owen Lanyon, in his despatch of the 23rd of January, had said that the column of the 94th had been surprised by the Boers, who numbered about 1,500, while the band was playing, and the men were spread over a line a mile and a-half long. The enemy sent a message with a white flag to order the column to proceed no farther, and whilst that was being done, they continued to advance under cover of the white flag, and so took up a position which, from a previous reconnoitre of the ground, they had chosen as most suitable for pouring in a deadly fire upon our men. He (Viscount Bury) hoped it would be considered that if any armed force used the white flag to decoy troops into a previously-selected ambush, that was, at any rate, a subject which ought not to be withdrawn from the consideration of the Royal Commissioners when they began their work. It must also be borne in mind that, though we had not any certain information on the subject, we did not know that war had actually been declared when this attack was made on the 94th Regiment; but if the matter were referred to the Commissioners, the real facts of the case would come out. He hoped, therefore, that they would hear from his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government were not pledged to withdraw it from the consideration of Her Majesty's Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, said, that the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had not correctly repeated what he (the Earl of Kimberley), on the part of the Government, stated to their Lordships on the previous evening. He had not said that certain "outrages and massacres" were to be referred to the consideration of the Commission. But what he had said was that an amnesty had been agreed to, from which were excepted persons who had committed, or were directly responsible for, acts contrary to civilized war-

  1925
  fare; and that the Boer leaders had declared their willingness to cooperate with Her Majesty's Government in punishing such persons. As to the affair at Brounker's Spruit, he said that with regard to the destruction of the detachment of the 94th, according to the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, that act was not contrary to those usages, and was, therefore, covered by the amnesty. But, of course, Her Majesty's Government were not precluded from further action in the matter; and if they should receive information which would alter their view, though they did not anticipate it, of course they would take a different course.
  EARL CAIRNSasked, whether certain telegraphic communications made known to the other House last night would be laid before their Lordships also?
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: I am not aware to what telegrams the noble and learned Earl refers; but I read here last night the same telegrams that were read "elsewhere." Perhaps he refers to the telegram ordering General Sir Frederick Roberts to return home; but the best answer which I can give is to say that I have to-night laid on the Table of your Lordships' House a further Paper, which brings the telegraphic despatches down to the present time.
  EARL CAIRNSgave Notice that, on Thursday next, he would call attention to the arrangements recently made by Her Majesty's Government with the Boers, as appeared in the communications received from South Africa, and would ask. for explanations.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (THE NEGOTIATIONS)—THE TERM "SUZERAINTY."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, before entering into the new arrangements with the Boers, there had been a clear understanding as to the interpretation to be put on the word "suzerainty?" He found, on consulting M. Littré's dictionary, that it really meant less than "sovereignty;" but he did not think, from the despatch of Sir Evelyn Wood, that clearly appeared in the arrangements with the Boers, and unless there
  1926
  was a clear understanding as to the meaning of the word, there would be inextricable difficulties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have a high respect for M. Littré's dictionary, which I believe is the highest authority that exists on the French language; and as far as I am able to gather from what the noble Lord read, the opinion of that authority upon the word "suzeraineté" coincides very much with my own. He does not define "suzeraineté" to be sovereignty, nor do I. I imagine it is something less than sovereignty. The noble Lord has referred to the definition, or rather explanation, which Sir Evelyn Wood gave to the Boers when he stated he considered it to mean that the country should have entire self-government as regards it own internal affairs, and cannot take action against or with any outside Power without the permission of the Suzerain. My interpretation of the suzerainty which Her Majesty's Government is to assume, is that it refers to the regulation and the control of the relations of that State with foreign Powers, and any other rights which the Royal Commissioners may think it right, after full inquiry, to reserve to Her Majesty, which might derogate from the full sovereignty of the State.

TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give any further information with reference to the question of the Enfida Estate in the Regency of Tunis? He said that, perhaps, the noble Earl would excuse his bringing this question again under his notice; but, as his noble Friend must be aware, it was one which was exciting great public interest, not only in the Regency of Tunis, but also in this country. Statements had been made in the public Press in France, as well as elsewhere, arising out of the Enfida case, but really involving the relations of this country and the Regency of Tunis. It would be very desirable if the noble Earl could give their Lordships further information as to the present position of affairs, and whether the case was to be decided by the local Courts? Perhaps his noble Friend might not be unwilling to lay before their Lord-

  1927
  ships the Papers and Correspondence relating to the subject?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there could be little doubt that the case of Enfida ought to be left to the local tribunals, because when the Porte made the concession of allowing foreigners to hold land, it did so on the express condition that they were to be subject to the law of the country in all that concerned their property. The Enfida question, however, was a secondary one compared with the dangers to which Tunis was now exposed from France, but for which Italy was as much, or perhaps more, to blame; for the French would not have become so excited at Tunis, nor have threatened that State, if it had not been for the intrigues of the Italians, and the fear the French had of the Italians attempting to establish themselves at Tunis. The Italian Government might fairly be suspected of not having too great a regard for the Law of Nations, since the Italian Kingdom had been formed by a disregard of that law. There was another danger said to threaten Tunis besides the fear and rivalry of the French for the Italians, and for that this country was to blame. He would ask his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the statement which had gone the round of the Press was true—namely, that a former Minister of the Crown had, shortly after the acquisition of Cyprus, admitted the claims of France to supremacy over Tunis? That statement ought not to be credible, for whilst France had no right to supremacy over Tunis, which was part of the Ottoman Empire, still less had any Minister of this country the right to give away and betray portions of the territory of an Ally, the integrity of which was secured by the Treaty of Paris. The statement that had been made, even if entirely untrue, showed the inherent vice of the Cyprus Convention, and the baseness of the whole of the policy called "peace with honour," but which had consisted in joining with Russia in despoiling our Ally whilst pretending to oppose Russia. In doing that the late Government had demoralized Europe, for France had come out of the Berlin Negotiations with clean hands; but now it seemed that she wished to invade and conquer a country which had given her no offence or just cause for complaint, and, if the statement now made
  1928
  in the Press was true, the late Government had been tempting France to this dishonour, in order, apparently, to secure her complicity, or to prevent and silence her remonstrances. He would remind the House that there were engagements long anterior to this on the part of France not to meddle with either Tunis or Morocco, given at the time of the conquest of Algiers or shortly after.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I regret that I cannot give any information at the present moment in answer to the Question put to me by the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr). The matter is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and I have referred it to the Law Officers. Their opinion is confirmed by that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Two days ago further despatches were sent from Tunis; but they only arrived this morning. I have thought it right also to refer them to the same learned authorities, in order that they may make any observations on them. Till that is done, it will not be competent for me to give any information to your Lordships. With regard to the Question of my noble Friend, I was not aware that he was going to put it. I believe it is evidently founded upon a conversation which had taken place between Lord Salisbury and M. Waddington; but the former had denied that he had made such an admission. The question was not one that he (Earl Granville) could enter into without Notice, and he did not think there would be any advantage in re-opening the matter at the present moment.

  PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)observed, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs seemed to have made a mistake in saying the House would meet after the Easter Recess on the 4th of May.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, as he found that the 4th of May would fall on a Wednesday, it was now proposed that the adjournment of their Lordships' House for the Easter Holidays should be from the 8th April to 5th May, instead of from the 7th to the 4th.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Doyen o'clock.