LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whe- 777 ther the Government had received any confirmation of the report that the supplies for the beleaguered garrisons in the Transvaal had been intercepted by the Boers?
§ EARL CADOGANMy Lords, the news received this morning from South Africa, and the statement made last night by the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament, are of so important a nature that I felt it would be my imperative duty to give Notice to my noble Friend the Secretary of State fur the Colonies of further Questions with reference to these matters. My Lords, the information which has been vouchsafed to both Houses of Parliament ever since the commencement of these negotiations has been of so unsatisfactory and meagre a character that we are not in a position to understand clearly what has taken place; but I think I may very shortly state what we do understand to have been the course of these negotiations. We were informed that, previous to the disaster which took place at Majuba Hill, a communication had been made to the leaders of the Boers, to which the leaders of the Boers gave no reply. The late Sir George Colley appears, while waiting for that reply, to have commenced his attack upon Majuba Hill. Certainly that course would seem to be one that required seine explanation. Whether it was authorized by Her Majesty's Government or not we have not been told. What we have been told is that, after the lamented death of that General, Her Majesty's Government, feeling a desire to understand how far the negotiations had proceeded, instructed Sir Evelyn Wood to go to the front—not, as I understand, to repair the disaster to our arms, or to vindicate the authority of Her Majesty in Natal, but to ascertain what was the position of the negotiations with a view to an armistice or to peace. Sir Evelyn Wood appears to have negotiated and signed an armistice; and, if we can believe the accounts which we have received, he did so, not under any fresh authority from Her Majesty's Government, but in pursuance of instructions which had previously been sent to Sir George Colley, and which Sir Evelyn Wood seems to have inherited. My Lords, I think it has considerable signi- 778 ficance, because it appears to show the instructions which were given to Sir George Colley when he was entrenched in his camp, when re-inforcements were expected to reach him from day to day, and when we might have hoped for a successful termination to the military proceedings—that these instructions were considered to apply equally to a state of things which existed after the disaster at Majuba Hill. However that may be, an armistice was signed, and we have heard nothing further from the Government on the subject until last night, when the Prime Minister was asked a Question in the other House; and in the course of his reply he made use of the following words:—
At the time when Her Majesty was advised to sanction the delivery of that Speech (the Queen's Speech) we were under the impression, winch I think was correct, that our first duty, on the occurrence of the rising in the Transvaal, was to place the local authority of the Queen and the military acting under Her Majesty in South Africa in a condition to deal with the emergency. We were at that time actively engaged in that duty; and until it had been fulfilled we did not consider the opportunity had arisen for our endeavouring to bring about a settlement of affairs in the Transvaal. We do consider that in existing circumstances such an opportunity has arisen, so far, at least, as to make it our duty and worth our while to have the circumstances carefully tested, with a view to ascertain what may be the result.My Lords, I do not clearly understand the latter part of the sentence; I do not know how you are to test what may be the result of those circumstances; but the earlier part of the sentence is clear enough. It amounts to this—that Her Majesty's Government do now consider that existing circumstances have made a change in the position of affairs. I may be permitted to quote the words which Her Majesty was advised to use in Her Gracious Speech from the Throne—A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of taking military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of my authority; and has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their own local affairs, without prejudice to the interests of the natives, which I had been desirous to confer.Therefore, at the time of the meeting of Parliament, Her Majesty felt it her duty to take military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of her authority. We are now told that circum- 779 stances have occurred which appear to have changed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on that point. My Lords, we shall all be anxious to receive from the noble Earl any information which he is willing to give as to what those circumstances are. So far as we know, they consist in a series of unfortunate defeats, culminating in the disaster at Majuba Hill, since which time an armistice has been signed—we are not told at whose instigation, and we have no further information on the point; but, no doubt, the noble Earl will elucidate it. The second point on which I should be glad to have some information is with reference to a telegram published in The Times of this morning, which states—That the Home Government proposed to follow up the armistice by appointing Sir Hercules Robinson, Sir John de Villiers, and Sir Evelyn Wood as British Commissioners, to meet a similar commission of the Boers, thus conceding to the latter sovereign rights.My Lords, this also is a statement of very great importance; but I am bound to admit that, coming as it does from the correspondent of a newspaper, it does not bear the same authority, and may not perhaps be regarded by your Lordships with the same anxiety, as any utterance of the Prime Minister's. But I may point out that the gentlemen who are stated to be members of this Commission include the High Commissioner in South Africa and the Commander of the Forces. Therefore, I imagine we shall hot overrate the importance of that intelligence if we believe they are not appointed solely with the view to the prolongation of the armistice, but that they have instructions with reference to the conclusion of terms of peace; and, more than that, that they are empowered by Her Majesty's Government to treat with the leaders of the Boers. The leaders of the Boers in this movement are in the position not only of rebels against Her Majesty's authority, but they are invaders. They are at this moment encamped on the soil of our territory—of our undisputed territory. Under these circumstances, that a Commission should be appointed consisting of such men as those mentioned is a statement which we have a right to expect some explanation of from Her Majesty's Government. Those are the two points on which I think I 780 have a right to ask for some definite information. I hope the noble Earl will acquit me of any desire to——
§ EARL CADOGANWhether he will kindly explain the meaning of the Prime Minister when he stated that circumstances which existed at the time when Her Majesty delivered Her Gracious Speech no longer exist, or have been modified; and, secondly, whether the Commission mentioned in The Times has been appointed; and, if so, with what objects?, I should add, my Lords, that I will give no opinion myself upon questions of policy. I am not even pressing Her Majesty's Government to say anything as to their views or intentions as to the future. I ask a Question upon plain matters of fact which have occurred during the last ten days, and of which we have received intelligence only to-day. I do not believe that it will be of any real advantage to the Government that any further reticence should be used. On the contrary, I believe it would be advantageous to the Government that these matters should be fully understood. There is undoubtedly at this moment a strong feeling of anxiety in the public mind with regard to the course of events in South Africa. I trust, therefore, that I shall be forgiven for having directed your Lordships' attention to the points on which I have touched.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I hope the Government will not be accused of undue reticence if we are not able to state facts which have not yet occurred, because with the anxiety which my noble Friend shows almost from hour to hour I am not able to keep pace.
§ EARL CADOGANI beg to state that it is several days since I put a Question to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhat I mean to say is that it is utterly impossible to conduct the affairs of Government at all if, before a decision is taken upon particular points, and if because there is a rumour in the newspapers the Government is expected, not only to give full information as to what has taken place, but to state their intentions as to what is about to take place.
§ EARL CADOGANI am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl; but I must 781 remind him that my Question had reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister last night.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe noble Earl refers to Commissioners who certainly were not mentioned by Mr. Gladstone last night. The fact of the matter is that the appointment of Commissioners, as Mr. Gladstone stated, is under the consideration of the Government. I am perfectly ready to admit that the Government have the intention to appoint a Commission; but they have not yet decided upon the names of the Commissioners, much less upon their instructions. Therefore, I cannot give my noble Friend the information upon that point which he desires. With regard to the other matter to which my noble Friend referred, he seemed to think that there is some mystery in this matter of the armistice. As far as I know, the circumstances are these. The first point to which I need refer is that a communication was received from Mr. Kruger on behalf of the Boers. It was addressed in the form of a letter to Sir George Colley, who telegraphed the purport of it to us. We desired him to send an answer to Mr. Kruger, and to fix a reasonable time within which that answer could be received. There has been some obscurity as to the exact proceedings of Sir George Colley, and we have not been able to clear it up in consequence of his death. There has been extreme difficulty in getting at the precise facts; but I believe they are as follow:—Sir George Colley fixed 48 hours, but did not receive an answer within that time. He, therefore, I conclude, considered himself free from any obligation to wait longer, and so made the attack upon Majuba Hill. After that attack, a letter was received from Mr. Bok, who acts as Secretary to the Boer leaders, addressed to Sir George Colley, which was opened by Sir Evelyn Wood. That letter, as I understand, informed Sir Evelyn Wood that an answer to the communication sent to Mr. Kruger could not be despatched for a certain time, owing to Mr. Kruger being at some distance. Therefore, as far as I can gather—for I cannot absolutely vouch for the accuracy of the facts—Sir George Colley did not take any offensive steps until after the expiration of the period which he had fixed. I believe, in point of fact, that 782 a considerably longer period than 48 hours elapsed. I believe that Sir George Colley acted with perfect straightforwardness in the matter. Mr. Bok, therefore, had told Sir George Colley—which information reached Sir Evelyn Wood, Sir George Colley being dead—that there would be an answer from Mr. Kruger to the communication which had been sent to him. No, I must correct myself. As far as I know, Mr. Bok did not explicitly state whether an answer was coming or not from Mr. Kruger; but, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I desired Sir Evelyn Wood to inquire whether an answer was coming, and he accordingly made that inquiry. Now, with regard to the armistice, Sir George Colley's instructions were that if he received a favourable answer to the communication sent to Mr. Kruger, he might agree to a suspension of hostilities. That was the instruction given to Sir George Colley. No instructions on this point were ever given to Sir Evelyn Wood, who sent us a telegram saying he had concluded an armistice, and telling us what the terms of that armistice were. I think I read to the House the exact terms the other day, and I suppose I read the passage in which he says that in order to give Mr. Kruger time to reply he had concluded the armistice. That, I believe, is the entire history of the matter. I am not able to say whether Sir Evelyn Wood said to the Boers, Will you agree to an armistice?" or whether the Boers said to him, "Will you agree to an armistice?" But there is a telegram which mentions that Mr. Kruger had asked whether Sir Evelyn Wood would be opposed to a proposal of that kind, which seems to indicate that the suggestion must have come from Mr. Joubert, in order to give time for the expected answer to be sent by Mr. Kruger. Therefore, it appears that the object of Sir Evelyn Wood in concluding the armistice was to give time for receiving that answer. We approved of Sir Evelyn Wood having concluded the armistice. In whatever mode this proposal originated, it is quite clear that when Sir Evelyn Wood made this armistice he acted upon his own judgment, which told him it would be a wise proceeding. Now, I think I have answered my noble Friend as explicitly as I can. I will refer again to the point as to the Commissioners, in order that there may 783 be no misunderstanding. Mr. Gladstone said that the appointment of a Commission was under consideration. The appointment of Commissioners was suggested by the Boers on their own motion. Those Commissioners have not been named, nor have their instructions been decided upon.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt cannot be wondered at that, considering the anxiety of the country generally and that which we feel ourselves, we should give expression to our feelings with respect to the proceedings of the Government. If any justification for the question of my noble Friend was required it would be afforded by the fact that we have obtained from the noble Earl a considerable amount of very important information which we never had before. I think, however, on reflection, that the noble Earl will see, when he considers it, that he has not really answered the points to which my noble Friend directed his attention. According to the tenour of events which come to our ears, and according to the answer attributed to Mr. Gladstone last night, there seems to have been a sharp turn in the policy of the Government. If that turn has taken place in consequence of certain circumstances which have occurred, we are anxious to know what those circumstances are. In Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne we heard that the authority of the Crown was first to be vindicated, and when the first duty of vindicating that authority was discharged the question of creating a system of local self-government would be considered. But now we hear that communications are being made to the Boers to ascertain what their terms are. After a certain delay was granted within which an answer was to be returned, and that delay was exceeded, the Government are so anxious for peace that they have applied for, and obtained, an armistice, and now have actually resolved to name Commissioners, on the suggestion of the Boers, to meet other Commissioners, named by the Boers, to consider those very matters which, according to the Queen's Speech, were not to be considered until the supremacy of Her Majesty was established. I do not, at this time, wish to discuss the general policy of the Government. I think it would be premature to do so; but I hold that it is calculated to create grave anxiety in the 784 public mind if it appears that they had no defined and consistent course of policy, and that a sharp turn of their policy takes place directly after our arms have suffered a damaging and conspicuous defeat. My Lords, the policy of the Peace Society is one which I do not approve. I know that a great deal may be said for it—a great deal may be said for all doctrines which are held by any considerable body of men. There is a great deal to be said for the opposite policy, and there is a great deal also to be said for the policy which Her Majesty's Government first resolved on to vindicate the authority of the Crown before entering into any discussion of the terms to be granted to those in arms; but the policy for which nothing can be said is the policy of maintaining a martial and bellicose tone until you have suffered a very dangerous and damaging defeat, and then to ask for an armistice, and propose a Commission to discuss the terms of peace. After the defeat has not been wiped out, to propose that Commissioners should meet to discuss terms of peace with those who are rebels to the Queen, who are at this moment invaders of the territory of the Queen, to do that, and to do it after a defeat, is what a nation might do at its last gasp. It is what might have been done after the surrender of York Town; but it is not a course of proceeding which we can look on our Government doing without great anxiety and fear of a considerable loss of reputation among other nations. I wish the Government, after having given this appearance of pursuing a policy which is discreditable to us, would abandon the reticence which they have hitherto observed, and give us ground for believing that they are still resolved to maintain the policy which they announced in the Speech from the Throne; that they are still resolved to vindicate the authority of the Crown before entering on plans for self-government; and that the circumstances which, apparently, in Mr. Gladstone's view, had altered in that respect, were alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman under a mistake.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI feel much tempted to point out that the course which would have been in accordance with the Rules of this House is not exactly the course which has been adopted by the noble Earl (Earl Ca- 785 dogan). At half-past 3 o'clock he sent a Notice to my noble Friend of a private character, and conveyed in very indefinite language. A quarter of an hour before the House met my noble Friend received more definite Notice of what the Question was going to be. Then my noble Friend makes a statement of some length, in which he says that he will not enter into questions of a political character but simply ask a Question, and then he enters into a statement of facts, and thus takes a course which, I must say, is very likely to cause a debate. I am quite certain that nobody who has just heard the noble Marquess will think that he can boast of great reticence in the expression of an opinion on the policy of the Government. He has just now made two statements which are not in accordance with the facts of the case. Then, having followed that course, he proceeds to a denunciation of the policy of the Government. I am not going, on an irregular occasion like this, into a discussion of the question of policy; but I will just say that the noble Marquess has been misinformed on two important points. One of his statements is that we went to the Boers to ask them for their terms, and the other is that we changed our policy after the disaster which we all deplore. It is not the case. We had overtures made to us by the Boers, and we sent them the answer before we knew, or could have known, of the disaster which had taken place.