§ SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the letters of Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. James Salter White, in the papers of 5th and 6th August, both of which gentlemen affirm that Sir Jacobus de Wet promised the protection of the British Government to all the Members of the Reform Committee as well as to the British residents in Johannesburg, if they laid down they arms, stating that not a hair of the head of any Member of the Reform Committee would be touched, and that no personal indignities, such as imprisonment, would be inflicted on them; whether Sir Jacobus de Wet was at that time acting as the representative of the Queen, and under instructions from the High Commissioner, then at Pretoria; whether, in view of these facts, the Secretary of State for the Colonies still adheres to his statement 389 that no promise of protection was made to the British residents at Johannesburg; and, whether he will use the influence of Her Majesty's Government to obtain the release of the two Reform leaders still in Pretoria Gaol?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI have seen the letters from Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. James Salter White referred to, and, without in any way impugning the good faith of these gentlemen, I cannot accept their version of what passed between the Reform Committee and Sir Jacobus de Wet on the morning of the 7th of January last, and perhaps the House will bear with me while I state what I understood took place. On the 6th of January, Dr. Jameson and his forces being prisoners, and Johannesburg-being in armed but passive insurrection, Sir Hercules Robinson was informed by the Transvaal Government that Johannesburg must lay down its arms unconditionally within 24 hours as a condition precedent to a discussion and consideration of grievances. He endeavoured to obtain some indication of the steps which would be taken in the event of disarmament, but without success. This decision was at once communicated to the Reform Committee at Johannesburg by a telegram from Sir Jacobus de Wet. Late in the same day, January 6th, the Government announced that it would hand over Dr. Jameson and all other prisoners to be dealt with as Her Majesty's Government should decide, but that the transfer would not take place until Johannesburg had complied with the ultimatum just mentioned. It was therefore agreed that Sir Jacobus de Wet should proceed early on the 7th to Johannesburg in order to interview the Reform Committee and explain the position to the people generally, who were infuriated with the Reform Committee, by whom they thought that Dr. Jameson had been invited and betrayed. The interview which followed in the morning-is the subject-matter of this Question. I have no official information of what passed in conversation, but Sir Jacobus de Wet has given the following account of his own part in it in a letter which appeared in the Saturday Review of July 4th:—
Secondly, regarding the private promise which I am alleged to have made to the members 390 of the Reform Committee, that if they brought about a peaceful disarmament the Transvaal Government would grant a free pardon, this is also incorrect. What I did say to individual members of the committee, who asked what would be done with them, was that I had no official information or any information on that point, but that, in my private opinion, nothing would he done. Anyone knowing the circumstances and the attitude of the President would have been justified in drawing such an inference.At the end of the morning's meeting the Reform Committee passed a resolution saying that, having seriously considered the ultimatim of the Government that Johannesburg must lay down its arms, they had unanimously decided to comply with this demand. They went on to say that in coming to this decision the committee had been actuated by a paramount desire to do everything possible to insure the safety of Dr. Jameson and his men, to advance the amicable discussion of terms of settlement with the Transvaal Government, and support the High Commissioner in his efforts. This resolution was telegraphed by Sir Jacobus de Wet to the Government at Pretoria, as well as to the High Commissioner, and elicited a reply from the former, in which, after quoting the ultimatum of the day before, it was said:—As you will see, no single condition is included herein. The disarmament must he, as already stated, unconditional. Whatever, therefore, may happen with regard to a discussion of affairs or other things of whatever nature, they have nothing to do with the laying down of arms. Whilst the resolution of the committee, calling itself the Reform Committee, makes a mention of a discussion of grievances and of a motion in the matter of the safety of Dr. Jameson and so on, it is extremely desirable that the committee calling itself the Reform Committee should without delay be clearly placed in a knowledge of the true state of things.Sir Jacobus de Wet appears to have done what was suggested, because at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of that day (the 7th of January) the Reform Committee telegraphed to the High Commissioner, saying:—"We have surrendered our arms unconditionally." It will, thus, be seen that up to the time of laying down their arms the committee did not claim that either the Transvaal Government or the High Commissioner was in any way pledged to them as regards their own personal liberty. Subsequently the Reform Committee were arrested, examined before a magistrate, enlarged on bail, 391 surrendered themselves in due course for trial, pleaded guilty, were sentenced to various punishments—four of them to death—petitioned for clemency, with the exception of the two still in prison, and were set at liberty on terms already known to the House. These being the facts, I am unable to believe that during all these events the whole body were in possession of, but kept silence about, a pledge from the High Commissioner or British Agent that not a hair of their heads would be touched and that no personal indignity such as imprisonment would be inflicted on any of them. I may add that Sir Hercules Robinson has informed me that before he met the executive council on the morning of the 6th of January, he was informed by a delegate from Johannesburg that the position was desperate and the town could not hold out for 48 hours against an attack by the Boers. His governing motive in his action, apart from a desire to obtain the transfer of the Jameson force, was a desire to save Johannesburg from the loss of life and suffering which would have followed from such an attack. The hon. Gentleman also asks me whether I will use the influence of her Majesty's Government to obtain the release of the two Reform leaders still in Pretoria Gaol. I have already on two occasions sent a message to those gentlemen urging them to adopt the same course as adopted by their fellow prisoners and make their own petition to the Transvaal Government. If they do this I shall, of course, be glad to support them in any way in my power, but if they refuse, from what I consider to be mistaken notions of dignity, I do not think I can interfere. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any official Dispatch from Sir Jacobus de Wet in which that gentleman denies the statement made directly by Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. White; whether he is aware that a third member of the Reform Committee has also written to the papers entirely confirming the statement of the other two Gentlemen; whether there is in his possession a telegram—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! the hon. Member is now replying to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. These are matters which should 392 form the subject of a separate interrogation. [Cheers.]
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThese questions do directly arise out of my first question ["Order, order!"]; but if you prevent me from putting them, I cannot of course dispute your ruling.
§ CAPTAIN BETHELL (Yorks, E.R., Holderness)Arising out of the last paragraph of the question, Sir, I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether, as the two persons still in prison will not make application for release, probably on account of their having to bind themselves not to take any part in the political affairs of the Transvaal, he could represent in a friendly way to President Kruger that the end he wished to attain would be better gained by banishing them from the Republic.
MR. McLEODasked whether the Mr. Phillips in question was not the Mr. Phillips who bolted from his trial at Pretoria.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINNo, no; Mr. Phillips did not bolt at all. ["Hear, hear!"] In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I think that he seems to have forgotten that the conditions imposed on the other gentlemen involved the alternative, either that they were to give an assurance that they would not take further part in political affairs in the Transvaal, or that they were to be banished. Of course, if these gentlemen preferred banishment to giving the assurance asked for, there was nothing to prevent them from accepting that alternative. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ CAPTAIN BETHELLDoes that offer still hold good?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThese gentlemen have absolutely refused to make any application to the Transvaal Government in the matter, but if they make such an application as was made by their colleagues and companions in imprisonment, I have no doubt that the same conditions will be offered to them. [Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI wish to ask you, Sir, whether you rule that it is out of order for me to ask the right hon. Gentleman to communicate to the House the Dispatch in which Sir J. De Wet denies the truth of these assertions?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI have not ruled such a question to be out of order. I ruled out of order a long series of questions which were in the nature of a reply to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. (Cheers).
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. friend has not paid attention to my answer. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I told him that I had no official confirmation from Sir J. De Wet on the subject, but that I took his denial from the letter he wrote to the Saturday Review. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWas it to that letter that the right hon. Gentleman referred the other day when he said that Sir J. De Wet had denied the truth of these assertions?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINCertainly. ["Hear, hear!"]