§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I have to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War a question which has been for some time on your Lordships' Paper. I postponed it in the month of May, as I understood that it would be convenient that I should do so; but I understand now that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give a definite answer to this question, which has aroused so much public interest, and which I now beg to ask—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to restore the commissions of those officers who took part in the Jameson Raid? I have nothing to say further at this stage, except to mention that I have received a telegram this morning from the Duke of Fife, in which he states that he much regrets that he cannot be in his place in the House of Lords this afternoon. He desires me to inform your Lordships that, as a late director of the Chartered Company, he is anxious to state that he knew the officers had been misled by statements made to them. Those responsible for their misdeeds having been to a great extent absolved, the noble Duke thinks that it is surely unfair that these officers should be the only permanent sufferers in this deplorable business. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNMy Lords, I beg most earnestly to support the request contained in the question of the noble Earl opposite, and I hope it may 10 be within the power of Her Majesty's Government to accede to it. No doubt there may be some difficulties in this matter, but the cleverness of our present War Minister may be able to overcome those difficulties. I plead on behalf of the whole of the officers engaged in the raid, and more especially on behalf, I may say, of the junior ones—those gentlemen who were led into it, and were unable to get out of it. The House must remember that all these officers are honourable gentlemen, that they have suffered great punishment, and that, in all probability, their future military career has been entirely stopped owing to this punishment. I venture to say that I think it would be a graceful act on the part of the Government if they were able to accede to the request of my noble Friend, and also one which would be generally approved of by the nation at large.
§ * LORD LOCHMy Lords, I wish to say a few words on this question. I sincerely trust that the Government may be able to give a favourable consideration to the position of these officers. I feel that the Government, no doubt, have been placed in a very difficult position in arriving at a decision; but, my Lords, I feel that, as the great mover with regard to the raid has practically been condoned by public opinion in this country, it would be but a natural sequence that those officers who, acting under his instructions, took part in that unfortunate occurrence, should receive some consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible, I think, to draw distinction between one officer and another in connection with the affair. I do not wish it to be supposed that in making these remarks I regard lightly the very serious offence of the raid itself, which cannot be too strongly condemned; but, at the same time, I feel that it would meet with the general approval of this country, that as Mr. Rhodes, who, no doubt, was the prime author and mover in that affair, has been restored to a position of great importance in South Africa, with the knowledge and with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, it would be but 11 an act of fairness and of justice to the officers who acted under his orders and authority that they should be restored to the position they formerly held in the Army. I trust Her Majesty's Government will take a favourable view of this matter.
§ * THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, before I answer the question of my noble Friend it is, perhaps, as well that I should remind the House of the position in which we stand with regard to these officers. The House may recollect that 13 officers altogether were implicated in the so-called Jameson Raid. Besides them there was Colonel Frank Rhodes, who, although he did not take part in the raid, played a very conspicuous part in the proceedings at Johannesburg. We had to deal with those officers. In the case of eight of them we determined, on the advice of the Attorney General, that no further action need be taken against them, upon the ground—I am using the Attorney General's own words—that, although they were participators in the raid, there was nothing to show that any of them had been concerned in getting up the expedition, or that they did more than some hundreds of others in obeying the orders of their leaders at the last moment. Their conduct, no doubt, involved a serious breach of discipline, but it did not seem to us to be a case in which the military authorities should take further notice. The other officers were, in the words of the Attorney General, found to have been—
prominently connected with the scheming, preparing, fitting-out, and inducing others to join in the expedition.Now, my Lords, of their conduct we felt that it was impossible not to take very serious notice. The extreme course which the circumstances would have suggested would have involved the expulsion of these officers from the Army, and the forfeiture of any pension or gratuity to which they might have been entitled. We did not go as far as that. The course actually adopted was that the officers were allowed to resign their commissions and to receive, on leaving the 12 Army, the gratuities to which their services entitled them. My Lords, my noble Friend and other Members of your Lordships' House believe that the time has come when we should review and mitigate that sentence. I understand that this is urged upon two distinct grounds. In the first place, we are told that other persons were not less gravely concerned in these events, but because they did not happen to be officers in the Army have escaped without punishment, or have in one or two cases—in one case, at any rate—lately been advanced to positions of great public importance and responsibility. My Lords, I own that that is an argument which I think your Lordships should receive with caution. A soldier, like any other professional man, if he brings himself within the meshes of the law, runs the risk of being twice punished—once as a citizen for his breach of the law, and a second time as a soldier by the injury which his professional career sustains. But, my Lords, another ground is urged in support of the view that the punishment of these officers should be mitigated. We are told that they acted in the honest belief that they were obeying valid orders from their superiors—orders which they could not disregard, and that when other orders reached them from the Imperial authorities it was practically too late for them to turn back. My Lords, we certainly do not accept the view that this argument affords complete justification of their conduct, or that it frees them from responsibility for their action. But we do feel that some, at all events, of these officers may fairly he regarded as having been, to a certain extent, the victims of circumstances, and that those circumstances may fairly be pleaded in mitigation of the punishment to which they at present stand liable. I must tell my noble Friend at once that we cannot allow this view to prevail in the case of Sir John Willoughby. His position, in respect to its importance and responsibility, was different from that of the other officers; and, indeed, my noble Friend may remember that there appeared in the newspapers last year a letter from Mr. Hawksley, who is, I think, the legal adviser of the officers, in which the writer said that in the defence which he offered 13 he did not include Sir John Willoughby, who alone had Dr. Jameson's entire confidence, and who stood in a different position to the officers he commanded. Nor, my Lords, can we admit the plea in the case of Colonel Rhodes, who, although he was not actually engaged in the raid, took a very conspicuous part indeed in promoting a conspiracy at Johannesburg. But, my Lords, in the case of the other four officers, we are prepared to admit the extenuating circumstances which have been urged by Members of this House. They have already been punished. They have been punished by imprisonment, and by exclusion for a time from the Army; and we are of opinion that the time has come when they may be once again permitted to wear the Queen's uniform. May I say one word as to the mode in which it is intended to give effect to this decision? We think it would be impossible to reinstate the officers in their old position in the Army—that is to say, to put them back in the place in which they would now stand had these things never happened, and had they never resigned their commissions. To do so would be to admit that while they were in private life—indeed, while they were undergoing imprisonment—they were qualifying for promotion in the Army and advancing in their military career. I am advised, again, that their reinstatement at the bottom of the rank which they held would involve considerable difficulties, with which, perhaps, I need not weary the House, and would operate very unevenly as between the individuals concerned. My Lords, under these circumstances, what we propose to do is this: we propose to appoint them to unattached half-pay in the rank which they held when they left the Army. They will keep the date of their rank, but the time which has elapsed between their resignation and their re-appointment will not count as service. They will, of course, refund the gratuities which they have received. They will be on the active list of the Army, and they will, therefore, be eligible for any employment which the military authorities may find it desirable to give them. I should add that what I have just said does not refer to Captain Coventry. Captain Coventry is a Militia officer, and I am told that he could not well be treated in this manner. We think that the part which he took 14 was a comparatively insignificant part, and we, therefore, propose to reinstate him in his Militia regiment, in his old rank, but at the bottom of the list. My Lords, I hope your Lordships will think that the course upon which we have decided is one which tempers justice with mercy in a reasonable manner. It will not lie in one's mouth to say that these officers have escaped punishment for their offence, but we do not think that their punishment should carry with it the extreme penalty of perpetual exclusion from the commissioned ranks of the Army.
§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am bound to confess that I have listened to the statement of the noble Marquess with the most profound astonishment. Last year he took up a plain and logical attitude, and stubbornly refused to have anything to do with putting these officers back into their places in the Army; but now he has changed his mind, and he comes before the House with a policy which he says tempers justice with mercy. He restores four officers to their positions in the Army, but leaves out two of them altogether. I fail to see how he can possibly convince the House or the country that there is any mercy or any justice in such a transaction as we have just heard. I take the case of Sir John Willoughby first. The noble Marquess says Sir John Willoughby is not to be put back in his place in the Army because he prepared the expedition, and because he held a position of high importance and great trust. I believe those were the words of the noble Marquess. But Sir John Willoughby— who, I admit, does not wish that any exception should be made in his favour, but in the cause of justice I am bound to disregard this appeal—in a letter he wrote from Holloway Gaol, dated December 1st, 1896, said: "I took part in the preparation of the expedition in pursuance of orders received from the Administrator of Matabeleland, in the honest and bonâfide belief that the steps were taken with the knowledge and assent of the Imperial authorities." That statement has never, to my knowledge, been withdrawn, and what Sir John Willoughby wrote from Holloway Gaol I believe he adheres to now. It is absolutely impossible to believe that Sir 15 John Willoughby's knowledge was any greater—in my opinion it could not nearly have been so great—than Mr. Cecil Rhodes' knowledge, and it seems to me perfectly illogical and extremely unfair that Sir John Willoughby should be perpetually punished for misdeeds from which his chief and his superior has escaped scot-free. I do not for one moment say that the whitewashing of Mr. Rhodes was not perfectly legitimate and perfectly right. I believe the country has entirely condoned everything Mr. Rhodes has done in this unhappy matter. What I say is that if you excuse Mr. Rhodes, and let him off completely, it seems to me a terrible case of hardship that those who were his agents, and who acted under his orders, should have this perpetual punishment inflicted upon them. My Lords, I feel so strongly, personally, on this question that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say a few more words on this subject. I think it is my duty to remind the House that the South Africa Committee declined to press to a conclusion their investigations respecting the responsibility for this raid. I have nothing to say on that point. This is not the only country in which State trials and State investigations have been brought to a premature conclusion. I can only say that the party of which I am a humble member were disappointed at the result of the investigations of the Committee. I believe it has never been denied that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government brought on them, to a great extent, the responsibility of the initiation and the execution of what has been known as the Jameson Raid. I believe that never has been denied. They either knew or they did not know what was going to happen. They either knew or they did not know what was common talk of the town, what was common talk on the Stock Exchange, in all the London Clubs, on the tramways and on all the railroads. Of course, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has repudiated the idea that he knew anything of the raid at all. That has been accepted, as any Englishman's word would be, more especially when he holds the high position of Secretary of State under the Crown. But to the uninitiated observer mid to the outsider it would seem almost incredible that the Secretary of 16 State for the Colonies should be unaware of what was going on. This is not, however, surprising to some Members of your Lordships' House who, like myself, have served under the Colonial Office and know that such ignorance of what is going on in different parts of the world is not only possible, but, unhappily, too probable. I think it is a great pity that the Ministers of the Crown do not follow the example of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and sometimes come among their fellow-men in the clubs and other places. If they did they would there hear really what was going on, and sometimes very serious and great difficulties might be avoided in the country. I have not, my Lords, any more to say on this point, except once more to express the deep disappointment I feel at the decision of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. It cannot logically be defended in any way, and I fear that this act of the Government, which, if it had been generously done, would have been a concession to public opinion as expressed in the Press and elsewhere, will be commonly considered only as a disappointing and a very unfortunate compromise.