HC Deb 22 May 1890 vol 344 cc1573-4
MR. HANBURY (Preston)

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the two telegrams of 23rd January and 1st February, 1889, referred to in Sir A. E. Havelock's Despatch of 11th February of that year, on Zulu affairs; and whether he can state exactly what proposal is referred to in the following paragraph of Lord Knutsford's telegram to Sir A. Havelock of 5th February, 1889, which paragraph has been omitted from that telegram as printed in the Blue Book, but appears incidentally elsewhere:— In answer to your telegram of the 1st February proposed removal of Dinizulu, by force or surreptitiously undesirable, and by whom such a proposal was made?


Dinizulu had appealed to the Privy Council against the validity of the Warrant by which, under Colonial Law, he had been removed for trial in Znlnland from Natal, where he was in legal custody. The Secretary of State, by the telegram of January 23, suggested that, under the circumstances, he should be sent back to the custody of the Natal Police. The Governor, in reply, stated in the telegram of February 1st that there "was no way of sending him back except by force or surreptitiously, and asked whether it was wished that that course should be taken. It is fair to the Governor to state that he did not advocate this step; and the answer to his question was given in the negative, as quoted by my hon. Friend. The telegrams contained other confidential matters, and were not intended for publication. No action was taken upon the suggestion I have mentioned, which was in any event unnecessary; for as Her Majesty's Government were subsequently advised a Warrant, in substance the same asthat under which Dinizulu was removed, might lawfully have been made under Section 35 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, so that his grievance was technical and his injury (if any) only nominal. I shall be happy to show the telegrams to my hon. Friend, but it seems unnecessary to publish them.