§ "That a sum, not exceeding £8,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for a Grant in Aid to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, for expenses consequent upon the termination of the War."
§ (9.0.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said there was no opposition to be raised, so far as he knew, in any quarter of the House, but the Vote was so large and important that it should not pass without the House having full information on some points upon which doubts had arisen. He therefore proposed to ask two or three questions. His first point was that there was an impression in the minds of some people that half the sum of£3,000,000 had already been expended, but he understood that the money had been paid out by the Treasuries of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and would be repaid when this Vote was sanctioned. Only in that sense had there been an anticipation of the Grant. 339 The other point was that mainly on account of the somewhat confused manner in which the Estimate was presented, it was not quite clear how the £3,000,000 in the third item was to be apportioned. Items one and two were of the nature of free gifts to the burghers and loyalists respectively, but as to the third item he wished to know if the sum was to be apportioned between the two classes. He understood the Colonial Secretary to say that this amount would be advanced by way of loan to burghers of a better position who could afford to pay interest after a period of two years. He noted in passing that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully guarded himself from saying that the sum of £3,000,000 was a final estimate of what was likely to be required. He made no objection to that. This was the point he desired to have cleared up, whether the advances by way of loan were to be made to burghers only, and not to other persons referred to under the second head. If this was the intention he could scarcely reconcile it with the ambiguous statement in the Estimate, which treated the third head of £3,000,000 as supplemental to the first two heads. The House ought to be told distinctly what was to be the real destination of this last sum. Another point was in reference to the loan. That was intended to be ultimately a charge on the revenues of the Colonies, and he desired to know if the Government could inform the House of the method by which this burden would be imposed on the Colonies. The King by virtue of his Prerogative, could, within certain limits, impose taxation on the Colonies by Order in Council, or create a Government in the Transvaal with power to do this, and, as bearing on the question he desired to ask, he referred to Article 7 of the terms of surrender, in which it was stated that military administration shall at the earliest possible day be succeeded by civil government. What was the status of the Government of these Colonies at this moment? Had the military administration been superseded by civil government? Was it intended to levy taxation to meet the expenses of the loan by Order in Council, or would this be deferred until civil government was established?
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said that as he was not present on the previous night there were one or two points he would like to raise in the interests of economy, and from the standpoint of the British taxpayer. It had been perfectly obvious since last May that they would have to meet the first and last items of the Vote. He thought they had got excellent value for the £3,000,000, which was the outcome of a definite contract they had made with their gallant enemies whom they had defeated in the field, but they could not be sure that the items were sufficiently large. On the whole he felt that the statements of the Colonial Secretary were satisfactory, especially as he had promised to keep an open mind. There was a difficulty as to the £2,000,000 which had never been explained. There had been no contract to pay that sum which, as he understood it, was to compensate the people in our own Colonies whose farms had been destroyed by the Boers, and who had suffered from war's desolalation. But apparently it was to be mainly given to those who were called the loyalists in the Transvaal. He was not going to suggest that anybody who had suffered severe loss should not be liberally compensated, but as far as he understood it the Government were suggesting that the people for whom we undertook this war had as great claims for compensation as those whose farms had been destroyed. Johannesburg was not destroyed, and the people who went down to Durban were able to get good salaries. There had been great loss through the war, and the taxpayers should not be asked for more than was necessary. In conclusion he would again ask for a clear statement as to the proposed appropriation of this £2,000,000.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)The hon. Member for Dundee has put to me one or two questions, which I shall do my best to reply to. I think his main question was as to whether the £3,000,000 was to be in the way of an advance to both the burghers and the loyalists, or to the burghers alone, and he seemed to think that something that was said by my right hon. friend last 341 night was open to some misunderstanding. I have no hesitation in assuring the hon. Gentleman that the sum is intended to be available for the burghers and the loyalists.
§ MR. RITCHIEYes, the loan at the low rate of interest. I think the hon. Gentleman is under some doubt as to whether this sum was to be devoted to the burghers alone or also to the loyalists.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONThe Colonial Secretary said the burghers.
§ MR. RITCHIEI cannot go into the speech, but I am sure my right hon. friend never intended to convey that. It would be little less than monstrous if we were to make loans to the burghers for the purpose stated and not to those who are our friends. There is no question whatever as to that.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONDo not understand me to be arguing against that.
§ MR. RITCHIEOf course not. The speech of the hon. Member is entirely in the other direction. I understood from him that he was rather apprehensive that it should have been so.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)Was that the three millions provided for in the terms of surrender?
§ MR. RITCHIENo. The amount fixed in the terms of sure ender was, as already stated, a free gift. The three millions was allocated as a free gift, and then there was an indefinite sum arranged for by way of loan at a low rate of interest. That is the item to which the hon. Gentleman has directed my attention, but he need be under no apprehension on that point, whether the loans amount to three millions or more; they would be available for the loyalists and burghers. Then, Sir, the hon. Member asked what method will be adopted for distributing the loan amongst the burghers, and he seemed to be under some apprehension that there might be some sort of military interference—that the money would be distributed by some military authority.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONNo; I merely asked the question as to Article 7.
§ MR. RITCHIEI thought the hon. Member also asked whether the military administration was to deal with the three millions.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI did not mean that.
§ MR. RITCHIEI understand it so. Of course, we act under the advice of Lord Milner. We shall place this loan on the market when a favourable opportunity arises.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONBy what authority?
§ MR. RITCHIEBy what authority! On our own authority.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONBy an Order in Council?
§ MR. RITCHIENo; by our own authority. We shall place the loan on the market, but, of course, we shall have first to get a Bill through this House. We shall have to obtain an Act of Parliament to enable us to guarantee the loan, and then there will have to be an Ordinance in South Africa after the Bill is passed. The loan will then be put on the market, and the three millions will, of course, be repaid to the Government, who advanced the money. The hon. Gentleman for West Islington takes quite a different view from that held by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. He has nothing whatever to say with regard to Nos. 1 and 3. The one thing he objected to was the two millions to be advanced to the loyalists, and I am sure the House will think the expression he used a very extraordinary one to apply to a matter of this kind. He said that we were not under a contract to do anything for the loyalists. I hope it does not require any contract. It is a plain duty on the Imperial Government to treat those who have been our friends in South Africa certainly not worse than our enemies. That, I should imagine, requires no explanation, and certainly no contract. We consider that we have a moral obligation on our shoulders to see that these men who have stood our friends in South Africa shall not be worse off than those who have been our enemies; 343 and if there is to be any distinction made between the two, I am quite sure that the balance ought to be in favour of those who stood, our friends. The hon. Gentleman has told us about certain gentlemen who came down from Johannesburg and were enjoying themselves at Cape Town. What did these men want compensation for, he said. When the compensation is given, I presume there will be discrimination as to the allocation of the money.
§ MR. RITCHIEBut the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that because these men were allowed to leave Johannesburg they suffered no injury. Those loyalist friends of ours who have suffered in any way by the war will, so far as our ability goes, be compensated quite to the full, as much as those who have been our enemies. The hon. Gentleman asked what was to be done with those who have suffered from the war in Cape Colony and Natal.
§ MR. LOUGHasked upon what principle the distribution of the grant to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony rested.
§ MR. RITCHIEWe are in consultation with Lord Milner on that subject. All this expenditure will be subject to the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and we shall have to give a full account of the way in which the money is expended; but to ask me now to tell the House the exact mode by which we have arrived at our calculations as to whether two millions is sufficient or not is to ask more than I can possibly answer. It is sufficient to say that in these matters, as in all other matters, we have been acting in consultation with Lord Milner. I thought my right hon. friend's observations last night were perfectly explicit. I have here a note of what my right hon. friend said, and I will read it to the hon. Gentleman—
He wanted to know why this two millions was asked for. Well, Sir, the two millions has nothing to do with the loans in Natal and Cape Colony. For those we have provided otherwise. We have undertaken with the Government of Natal to repay to them the compensation which they have given to those loyal subjects who were injured by the invasion. 344 And we desire and intend that it shall be given on a liberal scale. We have also agreed that a contribution shall be given to those loyal subjects who in the Cape Colony have suffered by the first invasion. I say the first invasion, because we consider that in the case of the second invasion the responsibility lies with the Colony itself. But with regard to the compensation which we are to give in the Cape Colony, we have expressed in the clearest terms our determination that not one penny of imperial money shall be given to compensate those who have rebelled against the Imperial authority.That is the policy which my right hon. friend enunciated yesterday, and that is the policy of the Government. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me.
§ (9.35.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said he hoped that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would no longer talk of loyalists. He hoped all were loyalists now, and he thought it would be better that the use of the word should cease. He was glad to hear the reply which had been given to his hon. friend by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His hon. friend wanted to know what discrimination was to be exercised in giving this £2,000,000 to "other persons." The Colonial Secretary told them that only those burghers who were nearly in destitute Circumstances were to have any claim upon the £3,000,000, but he did not say that in regard to those other persons. A great many persons had suffered by the war in England as well as in South Africa. Business told trade had been injured, no doubt, in South Africa. For instance, the mines. They could not he carried on. Were they to understand that these £2,000,000 were to be granted only to persons in a destitute condition, or could anybody put in a claim as having suffered by the war? Mr. Beit, for instance; could he put in a claim for his portion of this £2,000,000? His hon. friend on the Front Bench had asked what was the nature of the present government in the Transvaal. He thought that was germane to this question, because the present Government would have to make conditions in regard to this loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have forgotten that question. Was the present form of government in the Transvaal a military Government? Was there a Council there to act with Lord Milner, or could Lord Milner issue what law he liked, and were those laws binding on the Transvaal people?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I stopped the hon. Member for Dundee when he was proceeding to discuss the mode of Government, and the hon. Member will not be in order in pursuing that subject.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he only wished to look at the matter as a purely financial one. They were asked to provide this £3,000,000, and they were told that it was to be by means of a loan which the Transvaal Government was to pay, but which this country was to guarantee. What security had they got that the people of the Transvaal would take this obligation upon themselves?
MR. RITCIHENo security is required. All that will be necessary is an ordinance of the Transvaal Government.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThen there is to be no security, and the only guarantee is to be an ordinance of Lord Milner? That is all I want to know.
§ MR. KEMP (Lancashire, Heywood)said they had heard that compensation was to be paid by the Cape Government to those loyalists who had suffered by the second invasion. Seeing the present temper of the Cape Government, he would like to know if such compensation was not given by the Cape Government, bow it would be paid.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he desired to know if his hon. friend was in order, because it was stated in the debate that ultimately they would have to assume this responsibility.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said the Colonial Secretary stated yesterday that these notes would be regarded as evidence.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not understand the hon. Member's point of order. He is asking whether a certain item is to be included in this £3,000,000.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREthought the hon. Member opposite alluded to a statement made by the Colonial Secretary that the indemnity to the loyalists at the Cape was not included in this Vote, but that ultimately this country would have to assume the responsibility for that indemnity.
§ MR. KEMPsaid he simply wanted to know if compensation was not given by the Cape Government, whether compensation would be given to those loyalists out of the present Vote.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not think the hon. Member can enter into that question now, because this Vote is for a particular purpose.
THE MASTER OF EMBANK (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)asked whether it was intended that the notes issued by the late Transvaal Government under Law No. 1 of 1900 to the amount of some £750,000 should be honoured. A Mr. Schalk Burger informed him the other day that when he left the conference they were distinctly under the impression that those notes were going to be honoured. There was no doubt that the Boer leaders would be considerably discredited if the obligations entered into at the time of peace were not carried out.
§ MR. SPEAKERThis question does not arise. The Vote is one for money to supply necessaries for the resumption of their normal occupations, provided by Article 10 of the terms of surrender. Therefore I do not see how the question referred to by the hon. Member can arise.
THE MASTER OF EMBANKsaid he understood that the question of these notes came under Law No. 1 of 1900, and was referred to by the Colonial Secretary last night.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am simply looking at the matter as it appears upon the Paper, and I do not think that the question as to the liability of the Government for these notes is concerned in this Vote.
§ MR. LOUGHstated that these notes were mentioned in the terms of surrender, and this was a Vote to meet the j requirements of the terms of peace.
§ MR. SPEAKERBut it does not say that the £3,000,000, is for the purpose of enabling the Government to redeem liabilities which, it is alleged, have been incurred by them upon these documents.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONBut it has reference to war losses.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid the Colonial Secretary stated yesterday that these notes would be regarded as evidence of losses, and that being so, he contended that they would come under this Vote of £2,000,000. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] The Colonial Secretary said he would not regard these notes as legal notes which could be sued upon, but as evidence of losses sustained by the burghers and losses which were to be compensated out of this Vote.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the Colonial Secretary stated that the Government proposed to pay these notes out of this Vote, then it will be in order.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANKsaid he was under the impression that the Colonial Secretary had referred to these notes as evidence of war losses. He suggested that when the Colonial Secretary visited South Africa he should inquire into the question of these notes, as it was the cause of bitter discontent throughout the Transvaal. The right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech last night in glowing terms to the state of the Transvaal. He was afraid that when the right hon. Gentleman visited the Colony he would be disabused on that point. The tangle in which matters were there justified the visit of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to assist Lord Milner in bringing about a better state of things. Repatriation was sadly hanging fire. Only one-fifth of the people in the concentration camps had so far been repatriated, chiefly owing to the miserable railway system. As one who had opposed Lord Milner's policy in South Africa, he was glad to testify to the conscientious manner in which the noble Lord was now carrying through the difficult task he had in hand.
§ MR. CHANNINGsaid he represented a district in which there was a number of large firms interested in commerce both in Johannesburg and Pretoria. At the outbreak of the war these firms suffered heavy losses. They had declined to remain and carry on dealings with the Boer Government, and their stock 348 had been confiscated. He wished to know how they stood with regard to this £2,000,000 for other persons. He wished for an explanation as to whether any of this £2,000,000 would be distributed amongst such firms as he had referred to. In regard to the general topic he heartily supported what fell from the Leader of the Opposition last night as to the advisability of treating all parties with absolute and transparent equality and justice in the distribution of these funds for putting South Africa on a working footing again.
§ MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)said he wanted some enlightenment upon one or two of the items on the Paper. Item No. 1 consisted of "free grants of" £3,000,000 for burghers, and item No. 2 was "grants of" £2,000, 000 for other persons. Did that mean that the money granted under No. 2 item would be repaid, and if it did not mean that why was the word "free" omitted therein? He took the omission of the word "free" to be a clerical error, and that both amounts were "free grants." He hoped they would all vote this money, for if they could get South Africa happy by a gift of £5,000,000 and a loan of £3,000,000, they would be very fortunate. He looked upon this as a most important matter, for it was necessary that they should have South Africa in a happy state. In his opinion Africa was one of the richest countries under the sun. America was a prosperous country, but he thought Africa in the near future was likely to be more prosperous than America. He hoped they would vote this money and any other sum that was asked for for this purpose, because he believed that for every million pounds spent in South Africa now, they would save ten or twenty millions hereafter.