§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, when the firma of Meyer (Limited) and Wilson & Worthington ceased to be contractors for the military authorities in South Africa; on whose authority the Press censors in South Africa prevented the publication of criticism on the contracts for the sale of supplies; and whether he will at once reappoint Sir William Butler's Committee with instructions to inquire further into all military 1213 contracts made in South Africa since the close of the war.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. ARNOLU-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.In reply to the first Question, I ask leave to correct the Answer which I gave to a Question put to me yesterday without notice. I find that there are still some running contracts which have not yet been terminated, but I should add that immediately upon the discovery of the unsatisfactory nature of the transactions which have taken place with the firms referred to, I gave instructions that no further contracts were to be made with either of them. As regards the second part of the Question, there appears to be some misapprehension, as all restrictions on telegraphic correspondence to and from South Africa wore removed on July 21st, 1902. In reply to the third Question, I think that, in view of the further inquiry which is desired by the House, and which is contemplated by the Government, it is not necessary that Sir William Butler's Committee should continue its labours. I am confident that the proposed inquiry will be more satisfactory than any which can be carried on by the Committee, and, under these circumstances, I shall discontinue the Committee as soon as a conclusion has been arrived at. Had it not been for the establishment of another tribunal, I should certainly have authorised Sir William Butler's Committee to continue and to complete its work.
§ MR. WHITLEYMay I ask further, with regard to the existing contracts with these firms, can the Secretary for War give us the date at which his order was sent forbidding further contracts to be entered into; and with regard to the action of the Press censors, his reply appears to me to refer only to telegraphic communications between the Transvaal and this country, whereas my Question was directed to the prevention of references appearing in the local newspapers in the Transvaal regarding these contracts. It has already been stated by one of the newspapers concerned that they were prevented by the Press censors from criticising as they wished to do these contracts soon 1214 after they had been made, in the last three months of 1902.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe order that no further contract should be made was sent by me on June 1st of this year.
§ MR. WHITLEYThis year?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes, Sir, this year. With regard to the question of the censorship, I have answered the hon. Member's Question as I understood it. I know of no regulations in Pretoria which could have over-ridden our instructions. It is a fact that all communications were free and open, and no difficulty was experienced in sending any communications by telegraphic or other channels from Pretoria at that time.
§ MR. WHITLEYWere the local papers in Pretoria not subject to a censorship?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI am quite unaware of that fact. If the hon. Member wishes for the information I will ascertain.
§ MR. WHITLEYI will put a further Question.
§ MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)Were these contracts of Meyer and Worthington annual contracts or nine months contracts? When did they begin and when do they stop? Are they going on at the present moment?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThey are going on. They were contracts accepted by open tender very early in the year and were for supplying the troops in certain localities with milk and groceries for the year. They were very small contracts.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes.
§ MR. WHITLEYThese contracts were entered into six or eight months after the Auditor-General had drawn attention to the nature of the previous transactions with these firms.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes; that is so. These contracts with existing firms m South Africa were entered into in the 1215 ordinary way locally for current supplies and they were accepted on the lowest tender.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)When the present contracts expire will care be taken that new contracts are not given to the same persons under another alias?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI think I have given evidence of my views about that. The moment I ascertained that there was any possible charge against these contractors I gave instructions that no further contracts should be given to them.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)Will the Prime Minister say what Cabinet Ministers were primarily responsible for sanctioning the sending of war supplies to South Africa for at least eight months after the war was over and authorising the sale of the supplies accumulated in South Africa and of those that arrived subsequently and the making of local contracts for the supply of the troops? Are these Ministers still members of the Government; does the Prime Minister intend to ask them to resign; and was he personally responsible for any of these matters?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)The hon. Gentleman is not a young and inexperienced Member of this House, and is probably sufficiently acquainted with our political system to know that the First Lord of the Treasury for the time being does not add to his multifarious duties that of supervising contracts for meat or milk in connection with military operations.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman asks me whether any other Cabinet Minister was primarily responsible for sanctioning the sending of war materials to South Africa at least eight months after the war had finished and authorising the disposal of supplies in 1216 South Africa. To that I can only say that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a profound mistake if he thinks that precautions were not taken by the then heads of the War Office with regard both to the supplies sent to South Africa after the war and the supervision and sale of those supplies in South Africa. It may not perhaps have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that when a war suddenly comes to a conclusion the machinery for supplying an immense army in a foreign theatre of war cannot be shut down by the mere fiat of any Minister or any Department, The hon. Gentleman talks of sending supplies eight months after the war. The last supply ship sailed from this country, I believe, on July 5th, 1902; and although the hon. Gentleman could not be acquainted with the fact, it is nevertheless true that precautions were taken both with regard to the sale of stores to the South African authorities and with regard to the sale of stores in South Africa to other persons—precautions which, if they have been unsuccessful, do not owe their want of success, so far as I am able to judge, to my lack of care on the part of the Secretary of State for War or any higher officials at the War Office. None of these officials have been examined or had any opportunity of giving 'their opinions or tendering their observations before the Committee which has just sat; and I regret that the hon. Gentleman should have cast aspersions against my right hon. friend and his subordinates at that time, without a tittle of evidence to support it.
§ MR. LOUGHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware—to take one item—that forty-three cargoes of oats arrived after June 1st—112,000 tons—and that any of these cargoes might easily have been ordered elsewhere? They kept arriving for eight months.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is not in the least contradictory to the Answer I have just given. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that when a contract has been entered into and freight has already been paid, it may be an economical, and very often will be an economical, course to allow those stores to be taken to their original destination. That is a 1217 matter which must vary in each particular case. Contracts which have been entered into cannot be cancelled without a large pecuniary sacrifice.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the view of the collective responsibility of Ministers for anything done by one Minister?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have not gone into the question of responsibility at all.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The right hon. Gentleman, I think we understood as a result of the conversation yesterday, would to-day make a statement as to the conclusion he had come to with regard to the proper means of prosecuting the inquiry into these matters.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI understand the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends is that there should be a further inquiry into this matter. That is very strongly the view of His Majesty's Government. It is quite manifest that the inquiry we have had is utterly insufficient to enable anybody to arrive at the truth in regard to this matter, and it must be supplemented by some more efficient machinery. The only question is what that machinery should be As the House knows, I was inclined yesterday to think a Parliamentary Committee would be the most expeditious plan. Two circumstances, however, have somewhat modified that view. The first of these is that I gathered from such sources of information as are open to me that this method was not one acceptable to the House at large. The other is that it is not in accordance with precedent. The most relevant precedent, I think, is when a Commission was appointed to inquire into the charges of maladministration and corruption in connection with bent bayonets and broken swords of which the right hon. Gentleman knows. He was concerned in that matter—I do not, of course, mean personally.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat was the transaction I referred to, and it is the most relevant precedent in every way, as far as I can judge. The course which was then taken, with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, was to appoint a Commission. That was the course taken by the then Government with the approval of the then Opposition, and that, being the most on all fours with the present case, is the precedent we propose to follow. I shall therefore take the necessary steps to appoint a Commission to carry on these investigations which have hitherto been so imperfectly carried out.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI think the right hon. Gentleman has rightly interpreted the general desire and feeling of the House. The desire is that this matter should be further examined into by some body capable of administering an oath and compelling the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents. Yesterday we were led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman favoured a Committee of the House. I think he has been wisely advised—by his own intelligence, no doubt—in altering that view; because, although there is a good deal to be said on both sides, such a Commission as he proposes appears to me to be on the whole the best means of dealing with this question. But that is only a part of the question—an inquiry into the manner in which certain public officers have discharged their duties in South Africa. I have to say that we take a somewhat larger view of the matter, and at all events we separate that branch of the inquiry altogether from another which we consider at least of equal importance, and that is the conduct of His Majesty's Government with regard to these transactions. We think that that is a matter—the facts being admitted and known and requiring no further investigation—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhich facts?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWe know sufficient to enable us, as we 1219 think, and as I think the country is of opinion, to judge of the conduct of His Majesty's Government; and, therefore, as this is a matter of immediate importance, I beg to say that we shall submit a Motion on the subject without any delay.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURDo I under stand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wants a discussion first and then an inquiry? If so, I can only say that a procedure more totally and absolutely inconsistent with elementary justice was never suggested—
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir. What we desire is—it will be difficult—to prevent, if we can, the right hon. Gentleman from sheltering himself behind the inquiry. There are two branches of the question—[Interruption on the MINISTERIAL side]—if the Irish Secretary will allow me to speak—
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)I never opened my mouth.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMANThere are two branches of the question, the one affecting the conduct of the officers on the spot in South Africa, and the other affecting the manner in which the Government at home have dealt with the whole question from first to last. They are entirely separate from each other, and it is on the second alone that the Motion I have referred to will be made.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe distinction presented by the right hon. Gentleman seems to me absolutely absurd. Does he really suggest to this House, as the responsible Leader of the Opposition, that we should so frame the reference to the Commission as to prevent it from inquiring into the laches, or the supposed laches, of the Government and the Ministers and officials under it? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Very well, you mean to include that in the reference, and to debate it first; a course that is grossly unjust.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember in the midst of his indignation 1220 a little fact, which is that he promised the House a day for the discussion of this subject.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)Will the Commission be set up at the instance of and on the advice of this House, and will the names of the Commissioners be suggested to the House before the Commission is set up, particularly considering the fact that it is intended that the reference shall be wide enough to embrace the conduct of Ministers who themselves are going to appoint the Commissioners?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI hope the House will notice the procedure which has been adopted. I suggested machinery yesterday which the right hon. Gentleman says I was right in abandoning to-day. That machinery would have allowed the House to determine who the Committee should be who were to deal with this question. I have abandoned that in deference to opinions that were expressed, and I am now asked to depart from the ordinary procedure for appointing a Royal Commission, to violate precedent, because, forsooth, the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are going to be attacked. All I have to say to it is that we shall rigidly adhere to the ordinary practice in such cases, and shall not depart from it.
§ MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)I do not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to grant a day for a vote of censure which has been asked.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, who was interrupted by Ministerial cries of "Oh": The Chief Secretary must really control himself.
§ MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)Order, order! You are not suppressing a meeting in Ireland now.
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have not spoken.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI presume it is a statutory Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThen what is it?
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)I understood the Prime Minister to say that he did not promise a day for the discussion of this question. But is it not the fact that another day in Supply was promised to me in consideration of my not moving an Amendment when the Vote on which this matter would have arisen was before the House. I, in fact, began my speech then by saying I would not go into the matter of the contracts because another day had been promised.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI thought the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was referring, not to a Supply day, but to a day allocated quite outside the ordinary procedure of the House. It is perfectly true that I did say that in consideration of this matter not being discussed on the Supply day in which it would have been relevant, I should take care that another Supply day would be given.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREDoes the right hon. Gentlemen intend to follow the precedent of what has been done in the case of the incriminated officers and to suspend the Minister for War?
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)Will the Commission have power to take evidence on oath?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes.
§ MR. WHITLEYMay I ask whether the officers who have been relieved of their duties have applied for or been given an opportunity of a Court-martial whereby they may be tried by their fellow officers and cleared or found guilty, as the case may be, of the charges made in the Butler Report?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERNo such application has been received. I do believe that a court-martial is the legitimate procedure in the case of an officer, but I also believe, and the House will agree with me, that if the House should 1222 insist on another larger inquiry which is to embrace all the matters which would be brought before the Court-martial, nothing but confusion and probably nothing but disadvantage to the officers concerned would result from having the two inquiries Concurrently. If there were to be no inquiry instituted by this House or by the Government I am quite of opinion that a Court-martial would be the legitimate and obvious tribunal for these officers to state their case before.
§ MR. WHITLEYIf the House is of opinion that a Court-martial would be the proper course, would not that clear the way for the Commission to deal with the separate question of the responsibility of the War Office?
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERI hope there will be no misunderstanding on this question. The Prime Minister said that one of the advantages of the form of inquiry he proposed would be the power to administer an oath. I should like to ask once again whether there is any power short of an Act of Parliament which would enable a Commission to administer an oath? We were told, I think, at the time of the Parnell Commission it was necessary to have an Act of Parliament in order to enable the Commission to administer the oath.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman is perfectly, right. I was under the impression yesterday that a Royal Commission could not administer an oath; but I have looked into the precedents, and I find that in the case of this very Commission in 1886, the Commission had power, not derived from statute, but from the terms of its appointment, to administer an oath.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has found any precedent for a Royal Commission having power to compel the attendance of witnesses?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir, I do not know that they have that power.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)Will the right hon. Gentleman, before committing himself to this course, inquire 1223 whether a Royal Commission without any statutory authority is a constitutional tribunal endowed with any of the powers referred to—namely, the power to administer an oath and the power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs I understand the matter, the precedents show conclusively that a Royal Commission has been appointed which has the power to administer an oath and that such a Commission has actually administered the oath. That was the case of the Commission of 1886, over which Sir James Fitzjames Stephen presided. He not only had the power given him in the terms of reference, but he exercised the power and the oath was administered. With regard to the production of documents the same power does not exist.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, I do not think they have that power.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE> (Wiltshire, Cricklade)What power has a Royal Commission to compel a witness to accept an oath if he declines? I mean could a witness be committed for contempt in consequence by the Commission or by the High Court?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have to remind the noble Lord that this is not a question of theory, but of practice; and as a matter of fact three or four Commissions within relatively recent times have actually been appointed and empowered to administer an oath, and have actually administered an oath. I think that should be sufficient.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY> (Montrose Burghs)Would the right hon. Gentleman recall the circumstances under which what is commonly known as the Parnell Commission was appointed? That was a statutory Commission.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes; but there was a very important question involved in the appointment of the Parnell Commis- 1224 sion, which was the power of giving an indemnity to witnesses. That could not possibly be done except by statute, and that. I should imagine, is not either required or desired in this case.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDDoes the Attorney-General say that there is any authority apart from a statute for His Majesty to appoint a Commission of inquiry into such things as he may think fit, or that he may be advised to inquire into, with the power of administering an oath, and with the consequence of a charge of perjury in the event of that oath being violated?
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness BurghsI think my hon. and learned friend will find, if he refers to precedents, that there are four since 1860, including that year, 1862, and, I think, 1867, and certainly 1886, where the power to administer an oath was contained in a clause of the Royal Commission itself, and that power has been acted upon.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREWill the Prime Minister agree to lay on the Table of the House all the documents in the possession of the War Office or any other Department tending to throw light on this subject?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAll the documents will naturally be at the command of the Commission itself.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREBut we want them here.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURLet the House hear this. They have refused a Committee of this House. I think the inquiry should be conducted before one body, not before two bodies, and of course the information will be given to the Commission.
§ MR. WHITLEYMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he has taken any steps, in view of the grave statement of the Butler Committee that important documents bearing on this matter have either been lost or destroyed already, to ensure that all documents now in existence shall be preserved for whatever inquiry there is?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI have already taken steps that all documents connected with the inquiry both at home and in South Africa shall be impounded.