HC Deb 05 March 1883 vol 276 cc1509-36

(3.)Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £14,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Expenses connected with the Transvaal.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

wished to ask whether the sums of money payable by the Natal and Cape Governments, which had been taken credit for in the Budget for the current year, had been paid into the Exchequer?

MR. COURTNEY

Yes.

MR. GORST

said, he saw in this Vote, amongst other things, a Vote for the Royal Commission of 1881, the object of which was to secure the due performance of the duties that this country had undertaken towards the Kaffir Tribes that inhabited the country which was once our Dominion. He remembered at the time when the surrender of the Transvaal took place many Members of the Government—certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was at that time a Member of the Administration—used some very brave and fine language about the duty the Government had contracted in regard to the Native Tribes, and the importance of seeing that those duties were efficiently and fully performed. He confessed that quite recently the country had had some reason to doubt whether Her Majesty's Government was quite as much alive to the duty which it had assumed towards the unhappy Kaffir Tribes as the Government of two years ago, because, when the humanity of the people of this country had been exercised of late by telegrams which had appeared in the public journals relating to atrocities of the Boers towards the Native Races of the Transvaal, opinions had been publicly stated by high officials connected with the Colonial Office which were, at least, calculated to somewhat alarm the humanity of the public. He thought it would be very desirable if, before this Vote was passed, they could obtain some assurance either from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—whom he at present saw in his place—or—and it would be much more satisfactory if they could get it from the right hon. Gentleman—from the Prime Minister himself, that Her Majesty's Government would not cease to use their benevolent offices in order to mitigate, as far as they now could, the dreadful disaster which the surrender of the Transvaal had brought upon the Native Tribes? He should like very much to know whether it was really the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the use of dynamite in warfare with these people was a thing to be encouraged? Was it really the opinion of the Government that these people might be blown up with dynamite, and that, if war was to be made upon them, there was no more harm in employing dynamite against them than in employing gunpowder? In fact, that was an opinion which had been given some countenance to by statements which had been made from very high sources. To show the Committee that this was no imaginary grievance, and that there was really some danger of the people suffering cruelty, he should like to be allowed to read to the Committee a private letter, which gave an account by an eye witness of the destruction of a small party of Kaffirs in the Transvaal. This was what happened— In a raid made by a commandery of Boers, after killing all the cattle they could, and taking over 200 head of cattle, the Boers passed a large cave. From this cave two shots were fired. The Boers were afraid to go into the cave on account of the darkness, so they got a lot of wood and made a huge fire at the mouth of it. There was an opening in the stones at the top of the cave, through which the smoke was seen to issue. Then they piled on green wood to increase the suffocation. A noise like the buzzing of bees and groans were heard from the cave. One girl who rushed from the fire, thinking to save her life, died a few minutes after. The fire lasted about half-an-hour, and then the Boers went into the place. They found only two men there, one writhing in such agony that one of the party fired at him to put him out of his misery; but there were above 21 souls dragged out, with the exception of the two men, all women and children, who doubtless had taken refuge there from fear. The two men who fired the shots betrayed their hiding place; but they must have thought they were secure enough, as the Boers could not penetrate the recesses within. You can imagine the state the poor wretches were in. My heart sickens—I cannot describe it. I trust they were not left by their tormentors to writhe and die. That was an account, given in simple language by an eye witness, of what took place. He would mention the name of the lady, the writer of this letter, only he had received a letter from one of his constituents containing a most earnest request not, on any account, to mention it, or even sufficiently to describe the place from which the letter was written, for fear that the lady's identity would be discovered. The lady had told his correspondent that so little were the English thought of in the Transvaal now, and so much injustice had they to endure from the Boers, that were it known that any information of this kind had been transmitted through the means of an English woman to the people of this country, her position in the Transvaal would be highly dangerous. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would be satisfied, with his assurance that what he had read was a genuine statement in a genuine letter, written by a lady of great respectability at present residing in the Transvaal. He hoped he had said enough to convince the Government and the Prime Minister that there were atrocious cruelties being committed at this moment upon the Kaffirs, who, a few years ago, were subjects of Her Majesty, and for whose welfare and whose treatment under the Government to which they had been transferred it could not be denied that Her Majesty's Government were in some degree responsible. He did not wish at the present time to anticipate the discussion which would, no doubt, be raised in the House in the course of a few weeks by the right lion. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the general subject of the Transvaal; but the case was so urgent, and the minds of the people of this country had been so disturbed by statements which had been made by high officials in the Government, to the effect that there was no harm in the use of dynamite against the Native Tribes, that he was inclined to ask that, before this sum was granted, Her Majesty's Government should give some assurance that they still admitted some responsibility for the treatment of those people by the Boers.

MR. E. N. FOWLER

said, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would recollect that on the first day of the Session he had put before him certain statements which he was not prepared to dispute, and which he seemed to fear were true, showing conduct on the part of the Boers of the most horrible and heartless character. These statements described the manner in which the Boers oppressed the Natives, attacking and murdering them. But, more than this, he had brought before the hon. Member the case of two Englishmen who had been pursued by the Boers, all that was found of them afterwards being their skeletons, with irons on their feet. He (Mr. Fowler) was glad his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had referred to this matter. It was obvious that the hon. and learned Member could not give the name of the writer of the letter he had read. If it were known in the Transvaal who was the writer, the lady would find it perfectly impossible to live there, and would be very likely murdered by the Boers, The hon. and learned Member was bound to conceal names. He (Mr. Fowler), since he had addressed the House on the first night of the Session, had himself received some information from South Africa, and, like his hon. and learned Friend, he was not in a position to give the name of his correspondent. The writer was a member of the Independent Community, and, as such, lie supposed, was a supporter of Her Majesty's Government. He said in his communication that it would have been better if the unfortunate Bechuanas had never trusted to the intervention of their philanthropic friends, Her Majesty's present Advisers, and that— His complaint against the Government always had been, not that they had left the Transvaal, for they had no option but to do so, but that they had withdrawn under a cloud of promises to the Native Tribes which had never been kept, and which he was strongly inclined to believe never would be kept. That was the opinion of his correspondent. He did not agree with him that it would have been impossible for the Government to stop in the Transvaal. His opinion was that if the Government had taken a strong course, and insisted upon putting down the insurrection before they made a Treaty with the traitors, it would have been better for their interests in South Africa, and also for their interests in other parts of the world. They saw what were the results of the course they had taken. They had scuttled out of the Transvaal, and now these unfortunate Natives who were loyal to them in their troubles, and had stood faithfully to them whilst they were in difficulties, were left to the mercy of the wretched Boers. They were oppressed and shot down, and no one was permitted to stop them who was not prepared to take an oath of fealty to the Transvaal Government. He earnestly appealed to the Committee whether the course things were now taking in the Transvaal was not one which called for the interposition of Her Majesty's Government?

MR. CROPPER

said, he wished to put a question to the Under Sectetary of State for the Colonies on the same subject. The Native Tribes were not only deserted by their friends, but were unable to purchase gunpowder and arms for the purpose of defending themselves from their enemies. This seemed rather hard, for it deprived them of the only means they had of defending themselves against the most blood-thirsty of their enemies. He should like to know how they were to obtain the means of defence? Everyone knew that the Bechuanas had been exemplary for their advance in civilization. They had bet- ter houses than almost any of the Races in South Africa, they had adopted our dress and civilization and religion, and perhaps nothing had more tended to discourage the advance of civilization in South Africa than the attacks of the Boers upon this Tribe, by which the progress of civilization had been not only retarded, but driven back for many years. He wished to know whether the embargo on the sale of weapons and gunpowder had been taken off in the British Colonies at the Cape? A little time ago they had learnt that two cannon had been sent by the Cape Government to the Transvaal, and he certainly could not see why they should cause the purchase of gunpowder to be refused to their allies, whilst they allowed their enemies to be supplied with arms and ammunition.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

asked if the Vote for the Transvaal would appear again in the Estimates, or whether this Supplementary Estimate would close all the accounts?

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, it was very difficult to deal in any satisfactory manner in this interlocutory style with so grave and complicated a question as the Transvaal, embracing, as it did, according to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, not only the policy of the taking of the Transvaal, but the conditions and interpretations of the Convention, and, their liability to protect or defend or aid the Natives. Seeing that there was a Notice of Motion on the subject in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) standing for Tuesday, and that the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice of his intention to bring the whole question in a formal manner before the House, he confessed he thought it would be better, even in the interests of the Natives themselves, that the discussion of the matter should be delayed until they could deal with it in all its phases. Still, it was his duty to the best of his ability to answer two or three questions which had been put to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) had put a question to him as to the reply of a Minister in "another place" on the subject of the alleged use of dynamite by the Boers against the Natives. If he had known that the hon. and learned Member was going to call attention to that subject, he should have armed himself, as he did the other day, with the exact words used by the Earl of Derby. But he thought his memory was correct when he said that a Question was put to the Earl of Derby in the House of Lords as to what Report he had received from the Colonial Office with reference to the war now going on between the authorities of the Transvaal and Mapach, one of their vassals living in a corner of Transvaal territory, as to whether the Colonial Office had received any information to the effect that dynamite had been used by the Boers against the Natives. The Earl of Derby replied that, as a fact, he had no official information of dynamite having been used; but he added that it was his own opinion that when they came to elements and implements used in destruction, whether they employed dynamite or gunpowder seemed to him a matter of indifference. The inference that the Boers were thereby held to be justified in using dynamite in any other way than as a legitimate explosive for purposes of war was an inference he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) entirely denied. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Government, under the Convention, had no authority whatever to interfere with the conduct by the Transvaal Government of wars carried on within their Border. There seemed to be great confusion in the hon. and learned Member's mind as to the power or right of interference of the Government. However much they might deplore any imaginary or real acts of atrocity against the Boers, this, at any rate, was clear—that the war was one carried on by the recognized authorities of the Transvaal State against their rebellious subjects who had refused to pay a tax, and had refused to allow the Location Commission to proceed with the duties devolving upon it. As to the other question put to him—namely, about the embargo on the supply of gunpowder, Her Majesty's Government had represented to the Cape authorities that it was hard that the Bechuanas should be deprived of the power of purchasing ammunition, whilst their enemies had every facility of that kind they required. Though the Cape authorities had desired not to depart from strict neutrality, as soon as they ascertained that peace had been declared be- tween the two Chiefs who had been at war with each other, they took off the embargo. As to the guns, he knew no more than had been already stated. They had only been supplied for this internal war. Then, with regard to the money they would have to ask for in the future, the only provision they would probably have to request would be the amount of the salary of the British Resident. He hoped hon. Members would not think him disrespectful if he declined to go into the larger question of their relations with the Transvaal Government, because the question was so large that it would be doing injustice to it to attempt to go fully into it at present.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the Committee had great right to complain of the attitude taken up by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. As a matter of Parliamentary practice—and he was certain he should be supported by those who had had a considerable experience of the House—there was no opportunity of bringing the Government policy on any point before the House more favourable than Committee of Supply. When the Government came to Parliament and asked for money for a particular purpose, it was the right of hon. Members not only to raise questions on any point regarding that expenditure where they might think the Government to blame, but to demand from the Government an explanation. By raising the question on consideration of the Vote which the Government demanded, was the proper and Constitutional method for an English Member of Parliament to obtain explanations from the Government. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies said he could not go into the question, because his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had a Motion down for Tuesday, and the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had another down for a period not yet fixed. But the hon. Member had taken care to inform the Committee that there was not the remotest chance of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham coming on, and that there was no day fixed for the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire. Therefore, with this Liberal Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—this humanitarian Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—[Cries of"Oh!"] Oh! then the hon. Member was not humanitarian. He would withdraw the epithet, and recognize from his speech that night that the hon. Member was not a humanitarian or a philanthropist. This Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was willing to postpone the interests of these wretched Natives to the chances of the Ballot Box in the House of Commons. The hon. Member declined to go into the matter because it was too large. Why was it too large? It was only half-past 10 o'clock. The Committee would have been glad, he was sure, to have had an explanation of the extraordinary events that were taking place in the Transvaal. He very much doubted, however well satisfied the supporters of Her Majesty's Government might have been with the hon. Member's statement, whether the country would feel satisfied with it. There was another example of the philanthropic and humanitarian tendencies of the Government on the part of its latest valuable acquisition. The very first contribution this valuable acquisition had made to the stock of public information was as to the Boers in the Transvaal. He had said that the use of dynamite in conducting operations against the Natives was quite as much to be expected, and no more to be blamed, than the use of gunpowder. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) did not attach so much importance to the use of dynamite as some people did. Perhaps he would not attach much importance to the use of Greek fire, explosive bullets, or any other torture to compel the Natives of the Transvaal to allegiance to the Boers. The noble Earl did not attach much importance to this matter, for he had said it might or might not be important to use dynamite in military operations against these wretched savages, but if military operations were carried on, he did not see that there was necessarily more blame attaching to the employment of dynamite than to the employment of gunpowder. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) commended that statement from the Secretary to the Colonies to the Nonconforming supporters of the Government, who were the cause of their obtaining their large majority at the last Election, and who were so horrified at the Zulu War. He must confess he did not think Her Majesty's Government were coming out in a good light in this matter. This Committee had been very useful that night, for it had brought to light the Port Said scandal; it had elicited the disclosures of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and now it had brought out that the Government saw no harm in the use of dynamite against savages. The Under Secretary of State said the Boers might make use of slow fire—any weapon or instrument—and the Government had no right to interfere so long as the war was carried on within their own Border. Had they no right to interfere on the ground of common humanity? Had they never interfered anywhere else on the ground of common humanity? On what grounds, pray, had the Prime Minister denounced the atrocities in Bulgaria? And yet the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies got up that night, in his place, and said that no matter what barbarities the Boers committed towards the Native Tribes, the Government were not responsible. [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: I never said any such thing.] The hon. Member would have an opportunity of explaining his language later on. Whilst the political opponents of the present Government were in power, common humanity came to the front, and any interference was not only justified, but absolutely demanded by the circumstances of the case. But then the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, after saying that they had no right to interfere in a war carried on within the Borders of the Transvaal State, fortified the statement by giving the Committee to understand that, in any case, whether they had a right to interfere or not, Mapoch was a rebellious subject. Against whom was he rebellious, pray? Against the Boer Government; but had he ever given in his allegiance to the Boer Government? Had he not warned them—he and his brother Chiefs—that he did not owe allegiance to the Boers, but claimed to be subjects of Queen Victoria? Mapoch, unfortunate as he was, behind the age as he was, savage, uncivilized as he was, could not change his loyalty quite as quickly as some political Parties in the House. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies and Her Majesty's Government this—had they received any information at the Colonial Office of the fact that a certain Dutchman, of the name of Jorssen, had left the Transvaal, and was now in Europe, deputed by his Government to negotiate with the Powers the independence of the Transvaal from the Suzerainty of the Queen? He (Lord Randolph Churchill), at any rate, had very certain information about it. The matter was an important one, and he should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would vouchsafe him some reply with reference to it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that before the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies replied, he should like to say a word or two in reference to certain statements made in the course of the discussion. It was true that in Committee of Supply it was perfectly legitimate on the Vote for the Transvaal to raise the whole question of the Transvaal annexation and grant of independence, and it must be remembered that the New Rules of Procedure materially circumscribed the opportunities of debate on going into Committee of Supply. It might be fairly expected, therefore, that in Committee of Supply hon. Members would enter into detail upon matters which came under the Votes. He would not deprecate the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) raising an important discussion on this Vote; but, as the hon. and learned Member had himself stated, the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice of a Motion on the subject, and there would be a general discussion on it, no doubt. His (Mr. Rylands') object in rising, however, was to say this—that they were, probably, on the eve of having their feelings constantly appealed to in regard to the sufferings of the Native inhabitants of the Transvaal. He had no doubt the object of the lion, and learned Member was to induce Her Majesty's Government to recognize that they were, in some sort, responsible for seeing that the Natives of the Transvaal were treated in a humane manner. They had over and over again interfered in Africa, no doubt under impulses of a very humane character. They had gone to war with Native Races with a view to promote what they had supposed to be the rights of these countries, and he did not hesitate to say that for one cruel injustice committed without the presence of the British Army there had been 100 instances of death, cruelty, and injustice with its presence. ["No, no!"] Take the Zulu War, for instance. The policy of the late Government had led to a larger destruction of life than had ever at any time taken place before in that country through the instrumentality of Europeans. Speaking in Committee of Supply, he would venture to remind hon. Gentlemen that their policy of intervention in attempting to settle matters between contending parties, and in preventing a rough people on the fringe of civilization from doing injustice to the Natives, had involved them in wars that had cost them millions of money. What had been the result? Had they secured independence for the Natives? Certainly not. They had carried their arms over a large part of South Africa, and if they were to retain possession of that country, or actively render assistance whenever it was asked for, they would have cast upon them a responsibility and an amount of difficulty which no Government would be likely to accept. They were told that they ought now to interfere in the affairs of South Africa. How interfere? They were all at one so far as mere moral influence might be used by Her Majesty's Government. If they had any reason to believe that there were any cruelties being practised in the Transvaal they should use their moral influence to put a stop to them. Hon. Members might smile; but what he said they would not be justified in doing was using the influence of force. If the Transvaal Government within its own Borders acted in a manner they did not approve of, and Her Majesty's Government were to go there with an Army and put down the Transvaal Government, they would be taking on themselves a responsibility with which they ought to have nothing to do. They had responsibilities enough, in all conscience, without taking upon themselves fresh ones in regard to the Transvaal. Therefore, while he thought it would be more convenient to discuss the attitude of the Boers towards the Native Tribes on a future occasion, he simply entered his protest that on account of certain humane feelings which he honoured they were to be called on again to undertake a new crusade on behalf of the Native Races—a crusade which would be likely to do more harm than was sufficient to counterbalance any good that might arise out of it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was afraid the Transvaal Natives would find the use of dynamite a far more powerful agent against their interests than they would find moral influence powerful to protect their interests. He understood the Under Secretary of State to say that they had no right to interfere in the Transvaal, and he understood the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rylands) to say that even if they had a right, it was not a right they ought to exercise. He (Mr. Balfour) rose for the purpose of eliciting from the Under Secretary of State whether he adhered categorically to the statement which he was understood to have made? He recollected that when the Government decided that it was immoral to retain their Sovereignty over the Transvaal, one of the arguments most used by hon. Gentlemen who impugned the conduct of the Government was the injury that would be done by their retreating from the Transvaal to the interests of the Native races. The Conservative Party had a right to suppose that the humanitarian considerations which the present Government had never been slow to urge, with an appearance of sincere belief, when they were in Opposition, would have induced them to reconsider their position. But how were the Opposition met? They were told, when this Convention was objected to, that the arrangements which the Government had come to, or would come to, before the final settlement with the Boer Government, would be adequate to protect the vast Native majority in those districts. Now, however, the Committee heard from an independent Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House that this country ought never to interfere; and they wore told by a Member of the Government that they had no Treaty right to interfere; and that even if they did interfere, they could exercise nothing more than a mere shadowy moral influence, unless the Government was prepared to break the Convention, which, they were assured at the time it was entered into, was fully adequate to protect the interests of the Native majority. He wished to impress upon the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the duty of the Government to let the Committee know clearly the position in which the Government stood in regard to this question; for if it was true that the Boers might do anything they chose, as far as the Natives were concerned, and the Government had no right to interfere with them, it was clear, to his mind, that the Committee had not been adequately informed as to the position which the Government intended to take up in regard to the protection of the Native majority.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, there could be no doubt as to the right of the hon. Member who had just sat down, or of any other hon. Member, to raise the subject of the policy of the Government with regard to the Transvaal on a Vote in Supply. But the demand just made by the hon. Member for Hertford for information, and the objection to his demand was that all the facts and information on the subject at present in possession of the Government were already in the hands of hon. Members. The matter was one of great complication; and although full information was not yet in the hands of hon. Members, further Papers were on the point of being laid before Parliament in regard to this important subject. The hon. Member for Hertford ridiculed the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that it was better to trust to moral influence than to compulsory powers of interference. He must, in passing, advert to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who was pleased to refer, with very great inaccuracy—an inaccuracy which he would do well to devote his talents to correcting—to what he called the doctrine of interference set up by the Government on other occasions. The argument set up by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was to this effect—that under the Convention which bound them with the Boers they had no right to interfere with this case. "Then," said the noble Lord, "how monstrously inconsistent you are to urge interference in the case of certain Provinces in the Turkish Empire." The answer to this was that in the cases referred to by the noble Lord the moral obligation to interfere arose out of certain Conventions to which Her Majesty's Government was a party. In the present case the argument of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State was that the terms of the Convention with the Boers not only did not authorize, but tended to exclude any interference beyond the exercise of moral influence.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I only said that the Government must have a right to interfere in the Transvaal, on the ground of common humanity, against the use of dynamite and other explosive substances, or against any other barbarities of the kind.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord said that the Government must have a right to interfere, in certain circumstances, on the ground of common humanity. On that point he would not express an opinion until he was in possession of the facts. But there was another and a fundamental difference between the case before the Committee and that to which the noble Lord had referred. The noble Lord knew, or ought to know, that none of the interference which he so much blamed in the case of the Turkish Provinces was recommended at all until the facts had been fully certified upon official authority; and now, because facts and allegations of the gravest and most painful character were stated upon authority which was not official, but was anonymous, and must therefore be subjected to sifting, the noble Lord declared that the cases were perfectly parallel, and brought forward charges of inconsistency against the Government. He sincerely hoped the noble Lord would give more attention to some effort, or, at least, some elementary effort, towards an approach to accuracy in the matter of comparisons and contrasts when he chose to draw them. There were one or two points on which he wished to say a few words, not so much for the purpose of settlement as of elucidation. The allegations which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) were of the gravest and most painful character, and it was to be hoped that he would, in some way or other, give to the Government a means of examining as to their accuracy. He had stated what might be perfectly true, and he could not be blamed for so stating, that he could not give openly in the House the names of the persons on whose authority those charges rested; but it was to be hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the Go- vernment some assistance in investigating the cases.

MR. GORST

said, he would show the letter to any Member of the Government—to the Prime Minister himself.

MR. GLADSTONE

suggested that the letter should be shown to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State as the Representative of the Colonial Department. The Government would use the best efforts in their power to ascertain the exact state of facts, in which case it was, perhaps, more than possible that they would be able to trace out all the circumstances. There might, perhaps, be some truth in the charges; but it was also possible that there might be considerable inaccuracy. He had not yet read a report of the words used by the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), to which the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) so much objected—the words in which his noble Friend referred to the use of dynamite. The noble Lord quoted certain words, and he must say that, in his view, the words did not justify the comments which were passed upon them. His noble Friend said that, in his opinion, the use of dynamite was not necessarily culpable, and upon this the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock based the statement that, in the opinion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), there was a justification for the use of dynamite in all cases instead of gunpowder. But what the noble Earl said was that the use of dynamite was not necessarily culpable; and he would ask the noble Lord whether he had never heard of dynamite being used by British Commanders and British troops?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Never against human beings. I have no knowledge of it.

MR. GLADSTONE

Was the noble Lord prepared to assert that dynamite was never used in South Africa before by British Commanders and troops?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

repeated that he had no knowledge on the subject. He did not know what was done by the Generals of the right hon. Gentleman in Egypt.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord said he had no knowledge; but he had better have some knowledge of the rules practised by British Commanders before he indulged in these vehement and declamatory denunciations. It appeared to him that the meaning of the words used by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was that it was not possible to lay down an abstract proposition that dynamite should never in any circumstances be used in military operations, but that a judgment should be formed according to the peculiar circumstances of each individual case. He must admit that the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was one which evidently had very much to be urged in its behalf. It had been his fate, in a very early period of his Parliamentary life, to give much attention to these Native Wars in South Africa; and although he did not doubt that there might be cases in which good might be done by British interference, he must confess that it had always appeared to him, over a period now as far back as 45 years, to be a matter of the greatest uncertainty whether, upon the whole, the balance of evil and the balance of mischief, cruelty, and suffering to the Natives themselves did not arise out of our attempts at forcible interference. And although they were sensible that many honourable and generous impulses might, perhaps, dictate a different course, and though the question did not admit of being treated dogmatically, it was important, before this country undertook to use the influence such as was contemplated under the Convention which had been long on the Table of the House, that there should be a very careful examination of what had taken place in former times, and into the very serious allegations that were loudly made, in the interests of humanity as well as of justice, against a system of forcible interference such as appeared to him to be recommended. He only made these observations as interlocutory. He should be sorry if difficulties, owing to the state of Business, should arise to prevent the House from giving an adequate discussion to this important subject. He most fully recognized the duty of the Government to obtain without delay the fullest information upon all matters affecting the interests of the Natives within the Borders of the Transvaal; and he should feel that they were under obligations to the hon. and learned Member, for Chatham, or anyone else who would give to the Government the means of obtaining information in an accurate form, and of at least trying to test the influence they possessed for the purpose of recommending that system of humanity and moderation in the relations between the Boers and the Natives, which certainly, in the long run, would not be a bit more in the interest of the Natives than of the Boers themselves.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he should not have interfered in this debate but for the speech in which the Primo Minister had, at last, admitted the real nature of the Convention upon which the Boers had insisted, and had admitted, further, that there was a great difference between that Convention and the one which had reference to their dealings with the Turkish Provinces. The great objection which the Conservative Party, from the first, took to the Convention with the Boers was that it would not enable this country to protect the Native Races. Anyone who had looked upon the troubles in South Africa must know that the difficulties had mainly arisen from the cruelty with which the Boers had treated the Native Races. Now, however, they found the Prime Minister admitting that the Convention which his Government signed with the Government of the Transvaal was in exact reverse to that which existed between the British and Turkish Governments in regard to the Provinces of Turkey, to which reference had been made. Then the Prime Minister went on to say that the Government ought not to make statements or to take action upon any information other than that which was supplied to them by officials; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the only official in the Transvaal—a country as large as France—was a Resident, who had no force at his command with which to enforce his opinions, and who had neither railroads nor telegraphs which he could use, but without information from whom the Government could take no notice of the action of the Boers. That was not the way in which the Government acted when a correspondent of The Daily News supplied them with information concerning the Bulgarian atrocities. The fact was that the Government, by its Convention with the Boers, practically surrendered everything for which it had previously fought. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the influences which the Government intended to use in South Africa were moral influences; and it was important to take the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect as a whole, for the Government, he supposed, had a policy not only in the Transvaal, but in Zululand. As far as Zululand was concerned, he found that it was proposed to take, under a Supplementary Estimate—which could not now be discussed, but only attended to—a sum of £600, for the purpose of remunerating Cetewayo's wives. Thus, the House was to be called on to give an expression of approval to the practice of polygamy. Cetewayo was a Monarch who, if he had more wives, had also a larger number of cattle than any other reigning Sovereign in South Africa; and thus it came about that in the Estimates there figured a sum of £386 for the sale of his flock and herds, which the Government would be able to set off against the £600, which they proposed to devote to the remuneration of his many wives. This he mentioned as an illustration of the moral influence which the Government proposed to bring to bear in South African affairs. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would give some explanation of their reasons for, on the one hand, handing over the Natives outside Zululand to the Boers to do what they liked with; and, on the other, calling upon the British taxpayers to provide them with the wherewithal to remunerate Cetewayo's wives.

SIR HENEY HOLLAND

said, he was grievously disappointed, not to say dismayed, at the speech just delivered by the Prime Minister. He did not intend to discuss the question of the Turkish Provinces, nor the question as to the use of dynamite, though he must say that the Prime Minister, when asking the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in somewhat indignant tone, whether the noble Lord was prepared to say that dynamite had never been used by British troops, did not give any instance in which it had been so used; and he (Sir Henry Holland) ventured to doubt whether, as a matter of fact, it had ever been used by English troops in the way in which it was alleged to have been used by the Boers. The question before the Committee was not only whether they had a right, but whether they were not in honour bound to interfere, if Natives, whom they took under their protection when this country annexed the Transvaal, were attacked by the Boers. The Prime Minister seemed now to question both the right and the obligation, and warned them against interference. But it was just because they were afraid this would happen that they opposed the peace and Convention with the Boers. They objected that the Natives were not really defended from the Boers, and that the terms of the Convention—terms against which the Boers all along protested—would prove to be as illusory and useless to the Natives as the remonstrances of the British Resident unsupported by any force. And so it had proved, if they might judge from the newspapers, though the Papers to be presented to the House might alter the case. But the ink on the Treaty was hardly dry before the Boers began to attack the Natives, and, doubtless, Native land would soon be annexed. He (Sir Henry Holland) had trusted to hear the Prime Minister state that if it was proved that loyal Natives, who had been formerly recognized as British subjects, had been attacked, the terms of the Convention should be enforced. The difficulties of managing affairs in South Africa were great enough, but they would be increased a hundredfold if the Natives once learnt to distrust English loyalty and honour. That, however, he feared would be the result of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the Transvaal and Zululand; and should such be the case the country would hold the Government responsible.

MR. SALT

said, he wished to ask two questions which were, he thought, kindred to the Vote which the Committee had under consideration. He wished to know whether the Resident in the Transvaal had any power of reporting to the English Government any cases of ill-treatment of Natives which might come under his notice; also whether, in case of complaint of such ill-treatment, the relations of the Government with the Resident were such that they could apply to him for information? These were, to his mind, very important questions; but, in addition to these, if answered in the affirmative, he would ask if the Government would make inquiries from the Resident concerning the matters stated in the House? Next, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who, with his usual capacity and sagacity, was trying to slip out of this troublesome business, whether, in the Estimates which would be presented for 1883–4, there would be contained a specific Vote for the salary of the Resident?—because, if that were so, a discussion of this important question might then be raised. If that were not the case, he thought it absolutely necessary, for the credit of the House and the country, that the discussion should be there and then continued. It was most important that the country should know at the earliest possible moment what the result of the Transvaal arrangement really was, especially in so far as the protection of the Natives was concerned. He also wished to have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the details of the Vote, which, as it stood, was, to say the least of it, exceedingly misty. He hoped this was the last Vote of the kind the House in. Committee would be asked to pass.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he hoped this would be the last Vote of the kind they would have to ask the Committee to sanction. As to the expenses of the Resident, they formed a separate item, and they could be challenged or discussed when the Estimates for the year were brought on.

MR. GORST

said, that, in consequence of what the Prime Minister had said, he would be most happy to place the letter from which he quoted in the hands of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon the distinct understanding that he would take great care that the identity of the writer was not betrayed to the authorities of the Transvaal. The Government would see from the terms of the letter that the writer was extremely apprehensive of being known.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, he must answer all the questions of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) in the affirmative. The Resident had power to report, and he was constantly reporting. The Government would make inquiries concerning the points which had been raised; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) would give him the letter, extracts from which he had read, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would make the inquiries with all the safeguards the hon. and learned Gentleman desired. He would like to say one word as to what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). The position the hon. Baronet had taken up in this matter was not quite fair. If hon. Members would look at the Blue Books already delivered and to be delivered to-morrow, they would see that the Government had persistently, within the terms of the Convention, done all they possibly could to protect the Natives within and without the Transvaal Borders. The Government could not go beyond the terms of the Convention, but within the terms they had done their best. Whether they were to go beyond the terms of the Convention, whether, as it had not been indistinctly urged, they were to go back to force, he did not think it would be dignified or right they should discuss on an occasion like the present. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Natives were in a state of protection from any violence or any dispute when Her Majesty's Government took over the Transvaal, and that when they gave it up all these things happened. Why, the disputes between the Boers and the Natives had been going on for the last 25 years. There was, no doubt, a little interlude during the time we occupied the place. What he wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Midhurst was that, so far as Mapoch was concerned, whose case had been brought up that night, he never gave in allegiance to the English Government. He promised to pay taxes, but that promise was never carried out. He had never been a subject of the British Crown, and he had never given allegiance to the Boers since we withdrew. The hon. Member for Midhurst, who was generally so fair, had left an impression that the Government had not done their best to protect the Natives as far as they were entitled under the terms arrived at with the Boers. The Blue Book would show that that assertion was not justifiable.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he felt some disappointment at the reply of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst had not been understood. What the hon. Baronet said was, not that the Government had not done all they could under the Convention, but that the powers reserved to them under the Convention were so insufficient that they could not do what was required. He was most anxious that whatever was necessary should be done to prevent the unfortunate Natives being handed over body and soul to the cruel Boers.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, and he was bound to say he did not think it was satisfactory as far as the Natives were concerned. If possible, he had listened to the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with more apprehension. The words he used were significant and painful. The Under Secretary of State indicated, after listening to the statement which the Primo Minister admitted was one which required investigation and attention, the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the painful and revolting cruelties practised on human beings who, a couple of years ago, wore, like ourselves, subjects of the Queen—the hon. Gentleman indicated that the present was a state of facts which had been going on for 20, 25, or 30 years. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, know when they entered into the Convention what they had to guard against; and the cool words of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State was that the revolting state of alternate cruelty and barbarism was checked or had an interlude during the time that the Natives enjoyed the protection of the English Crown and were Her Majesty's subjects. The Convention which had been entered into had been either efficacious or worthless in respect to the protection of the Natives. If it was efficacious it must be something capable of being appealed to to prevent the ill-treatment of the Natives; if it was worthless, it was only another instance of the mischievous policy of the Primo Minister and his Government. The Under Secretary of State said the Government or the Resident would do what they could or were able to do within the limits of the law. That was all very good if the law was good; but the law was the deliberate act of Her Majesty's Government, and the law was the Convention. What he wanted to know was, what power there was within the law for Her Majesty's Government to insist that the Natives should not be ill-treated, but should be treated as human beings? They had got a Resident there with moral power. What did they mean by that? If they wore satisfied to-morrow, when they were given the letter from which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had quoted that the things alleged had gone on, what could they do? Under the terms of their existing law, what could the Government do? What did they intend to do if they were satisfied that these cruelties had actually happened? It was impossible to disregard the charges that had boon made that night, for they had been supported by extracts from letters, the reading of which, at all events, had satisfied those who heard them that a primâ facie case had been made out for inquiry. It was impossible to have listened to the reading of the letters without grave misgivings. The Convention was made in spite of protestations. What could they do but morally protest if they were satisfied that the charges were well-founded? The Committee might, he presumed, venture to look forward to this—that the Government would, now that this debate had occurred, take the earliest possible means, by telegraph and otherwise, of ascertaining what foundation, if any, there was for the charges; and that they would, if there was any foundation for them, take care that such a disgraceful state of facts should cease as soon as possible. The Prime Minister used words they had heard often during the last two years—"Wait for Papers; the matter is not yet ripe." Whenever a charge had been brought forward in that House during the last two years they had been told—"Wait for Papers; the matter is not yet ripe." And when Papers were presented the Opposition were told that the matters to which they related were ancient history. That happened very much, if he remembered right, when his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), day after day, and month after month, asked for a day to discuss the proceedings of the Transvaal War. The right hon. Gentleman was put off until a day at the end of the Session, when the Government thought that public opinion in regard to the matter had cooled down. Let them no be plain. They were told by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) that on the Vote for the salary and expenses of the Resident the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing the affairs of the Transvaal. They would have an opportunity, of which they would avail themselves, of discussing what they then thought ripe; but they did not mean to be put off in regard to this subject until a later period than they considered proper. They hoped the Papers would be given on an early date, and that the matter would be made ripe for discussion. He trusted the Government would make investigations into the charges which had been made, and that they would soon be in a condition to inform the House that there was either no foundation for the charges, or else, there being some foundation for them, the Government would make representations to prevent a recurrence of the proceedings.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that before the Vote was put there should be some answer given to the appeal which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). His right hon. and learned Friend desired that an opportunity should be given by the Government, when the Papers were produced, for the consideration of the grave questions raised in the present debate. It was alleged that some hundreds of thousands of men, who were British subjects a few months ago, were now subjected to great cruelty, by reason of the fact that the Government failed in the arrangements they made with the Transvaal Government to secure means by which the Natives should be protected. Whether that allegation was true or not, it was so grave an allegation that the Government could not fail, he apprehended, to meet it in a fair and straightforward way. They were told they could not refuse to vote the money asked, because they had not information before them. Information was to be laid before them to-morrow. But then the Vote would have been passed, and there would be no opportunity for discussing the question. Before the Vote was taken there should be a distinct understanding that the Government would give an opportunity for the consideration of the question of which his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice. The Opposition desired to raise this question, this grave question affecting the honour and humanity of this country. It must be remembered that the Committee yearly voted large sums of money, and they were glad and proud to vote them, for the protection and deliverance of slaves on the West Coast of Africa. They deliberately exposed their sailors to the influences of a pestiferous climate, and they lost many annually in the protection of Natives in Africa who never were British subjects; and now when men, who only a few months ago were British subjects, were subjected to great cruelties, the Committee had a right to ask the Government to give them an opportunity of discussing the matter.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not quite understand the appeal that was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). Was it that on the ground of the allegations made that night, which the Government had undertaken, to the best of their power, to sift, and in anticipation of the information to be so obtained, the Government should promise to give up one or more Government nights, which alone were at their disposal, for the discussion of this question? Such an appeal was entirely premature, and with due regard to the obligations of the Government and to the transaction of Public Business it could not be acceded to. What his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had pointed out was that there must be upon the Estimates of the coming year a Vote proposed for the salary of the Resident, and that in that shape the Government must itself submit the arrangements made in the Transvaal for the consideration of the Committee.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been met in a spirit in which it ought not to have been met. It was asked whether there would be an opportunity afforded for discussing the particular question which had been raised that night. The Prime Minister said certainly. But they wanted to know when, for they feared that it might be probably about the end of August. That was the time at which the Estimates for these sort of things would naturally be brought forward. They were told there were Papers to be laid on the Table, and they were asking the Government not to take this Vote before hon. Members could see these Papers. No Member of the Government had risen to answer the forcible speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). Certainly, unless some answer was given which would be satisfactory to the Committee, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should rise again in order to propose that the Vote be either postponed, or that the debate be adjourned. Until the Papers were laid before the Committee, he thought that was a reasonable course to pursue.

MR. MONK

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had been a Secretary to the Treasury himself, should not have remembered that there was another occasion on which the matter could be discussed—namely, the stage of Report. If the Vote was passed now it would not be taken on Report until after the Papers were in the hands of Members. If necessary, the matter could be fully discussed on the Report stage.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monk) seemed to forget that it was one of the duties of the Secretary to the Treasury never to bring on Report until it was impossible to discuss it.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, as no one had risen to answer the appeal made to the Treasury Bench, he should take a division on the Vote. He would move that the Chairman do now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 128: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 17.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to obviate a misapprehension which he thought had arisen, and to point out to hon. Gentlemen that there must be a full opportunity afforded by the Government for the discussion on the Vote which would have to be proposed for the salary of the Resident in the Transvaal. It was hoped that that Vote might be taken at a comparatively early period, and it had never been at all within his intention that it should be moved so late in the Session as the month of August, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to suppose would be the case. The Government had made the best arrangements they could to got on with Supply; and as to the question now before the Committee, he had no difficulty whatever in saying that the Vote for the Resident's salary should be taken at a convenient period of the evening. He did not say that it should be taken out of its regular course, because it might so happen that it would come on in regular order at a convenient period of the evening; but, if it should prove to be necessary, he would promise that it should be taken out of its regular course.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that if the explanation of the Prime Minister had been given before the division was taken, he should not have thought it necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. But he had thought it absolutely essential to make a protest against the way in which the Government had chosen to treat the observations that had been made.

Original Question put, and agreed to.