THE EARL OF ROSSLYNMy Lords, I beg to ask his Majesty's Government (1) For what purpose was £25 to each officer and £5 to each man, being prisoners of war in Pretoria, supplied on or about 25th May, 1900; (2) Was such money a gift, an allowance, or a grant, or was it in lieu of pay; (3) If in lieu of pay, in what form was it entrusted to the late Mr. Adalbert Hay, and with what instructions; (4) Will such instructions be laid on the Table of the House; (5) Was such allowance, grant, or gift intended for every prisoner of war, combatant or non-combatant, civilian or soldier. I have divided the Questions into five sections in order that I may, if possible, get a specific and full reply. I have put the Questions on behalf of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who were prisoners of war at the time, and who, when they received the money, had no grounds for believing that it was not a gift but an advance, which the War Office has since represented it to be. In fact, the general impression among the officers and men was that they were not entitled to receive pay during the time they were prisoners of war. If I may be allowed to do so I 544 will quote one paragraph from many petitions and letters I have received from men in the South African Field Force—
The £1 which Mr. Wood of the Natal Bank issued to us with the understanding that it was part of £5 that was raised by subscription at home for the prisoners of war, has been stopped out of our regimental pay,which is most unjust. I have a personal interest in the matter, because I was a prisoner of war in Pretoria as a non-combatant at the time the money was distributed; and no one was more thankful to the War Office than myself for this donation of £25. But when I returned home I was asked to refund the money, and I replied, as politely as I could, that I had no intention of doing so unless I was compelled by law. The whole question, of course, turns on whether the money was a gift, an advance, or in lieu of pay; but I may say that the officers were so certain that it was a gift that they gave away the greater part of it afterwards to those whom they thought most deserving.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN)My Lords, before answering the series of Questions which the noble Earl has put, perhaps I might explain the circumstances under which this money was advanced to the officers and men who were so unfortunate as to be prisoners of war at that time in Pretoria. At the beginning of 1900, when the noble Earl was himself a prisoner of war, Mr. Hay, then American Consul in Pretoria, offered his kind services with a view to having a certain sum of money distributed through the Standard Bank among the prisoners of war. The offer was availed of, and the money was distributed, as the noble Lord has correctly stated, at the rate of £25 to the officers and £5 to the non-commissioned officers and men. There were also some civilian prisoners of war, including the noble Earl, who participated in these advances. The noble Earl first asks for what purpose the money was supplied to the prisoners of war. It was supplied to them because it was deemed they were in want of money. In reply to the noble Earl's second Question, it was not a gift, nor an allowance, nor a grant, nor was it in lieu of pay. It was an advance. It was not entrusted to 545 Mr. Hay in any particular form, nor I did Mr. Hay receive any particular instructions, except that he was to distribute it to the prisoners at the rate; of £25 to the officers and £5 to the non-commissioned officers and men. When the advances were arranged for, it was not known that there were any civilian prisoners of war at Pretoria, nor was it primarily intended that those non-combatants should receive advances But the money was given to the civilian prisoners of war, and the noble Earl was among those who received £25. It is true that the practice or rule has been that non-commissioned officers and men are not entitled to pay while prisoners of war. That practice, or rule, has been considerably modified of late. But I do not think it is possible for anybody, except the noble Earl, to have imagined that this sum of money was a free gift or grant from the Government to soldiers who had been so unfortunate as to be taken prisoners of war. I cannot understand how the idea has arisen in the mind of the noble Earl, because a prisoner of war is not so useful to the country as to induce the Government to place a premium on men in that position. The noble Earl asks further how much of the money has been recovered. I am able to inform the noble Earl that in all £8,17010s. was advanced, and£7,97610s. has been recovered. The balance of £194, including the £25 advanced to the noble Earl, has been written off as irrecoverable. That amount may be stated to represent, generally, allowances to civilians who were in indigent and destitute circumstances, and it has been written off as a bad debt. It appears, from a letter written to Mr. Hay by the manager of the Standard Bank, who distributed the money, that the sum of £25 was advanced to the noble Earl on the distinct understanding that he should refund it, if necessary, to the Imperial Governments
LORD RAGLANI was much astonished that a person in the position of the noble Earl should have taken up the line he has done. I am still more astonished that he should bring the matter before your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF ROSSLYNI beg to say that I did it entirely on behalf of the officers, the non-commissioned officers, and men, who were absolutely under the belief that the money was a gift to them. One man who was under this impression, instead of husbanding the money, went and bought a pot of jam for ten shillings.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, I wish to supplement briefly what has been said by my noble friend. These officers were prisoners of war. We had no means of access to them. We knew them to be without funds. We desired, if possible, to provide them with funds. Considerable arrears of pay were due to them, and an arrangement was made; not without some difficulty, under which the Standard Bank undertook the distribution of certain sums with the aid of the United States Consul in Pretoria, Mr. Adalbert Hay, for whose kindly and considerate assistance I do not think we can be too grateful, and whose untimely death last year was lamented by all who had the good fortune to know him, or were aware of the manner in which he was beloved by those nearest to him. There is no doubt whatever that these grants of money were intended as advances to the officers. I have here with me some documents relating to this matter. One is a letter to Lord Loch, with whom the idea of thus assisting the captive officers first originated. Lord Loch was a director of the Standard Bank, and he was good enough to suggest to me that through the agency of that bank it might be possible to bring funds within reach of the prisoners of war. In the War Office letter to Lord Loch it was distinctly stated—
Lord Lansdowne wishes to arrange for an advance of £25 to each officer and £5 to each soldier who is a prisoner.That shows what originally was the intention of the War Office. Further on, I find a letter written by the Accountant 547 General of the War Office to the manager of the bank, in which reference is made to a former letter on the subject of advances to British prisoners. Then comes a telegram sent from the War Office to the General Officer in command of the Communications, which runs—Instruct the Chief Paymaster to obtain from the American Consul at Pretoria, as soon as possible, receipts from prisoners for advances to them.So that throughout the correspondence the word "advance" was used. My noble friend said with truth that there was evidence to show that when this payment was made to the noble Earl, he was told it was an advance. The noble Earl challenged that, and asked whether the evidence was in writing. It is in writing. It is a letter from the manager of the bank, Mr. Leigh Wood, to Mr. Hay, dated 12th June, 1900—I would further remark that payment to Lord Rosslyn was made on the representation that he was lately an officer in Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry. … As there was, in my opinion, some doubt as to the claim of Lord Rosslyn, who is also a war correspondent, the amount was paid over under the express understanding with both gentlemen, that a refund would be made by them to the Imperial Government, if necessary.So far as to the intention with which the money was advanced to the noble Lord. When we came to settle accounts with the recipients, a letter was written in the Financial Department of the War Office to the noble Lord—to be strictly correct, the letter was originally written to the newspaper for which the noble Lord acted, suggesting that, as other recipients of these grants were refunding the amounts they had received, and as the amount was an advance, he possibly would cause a remittance to be made to the Chief Paymaster.
THE Earl OF ROSSLYNI understand "refunding" to mean a "stoppage" of the pay of officers of the Army.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt comes to the same thing. The noble Lord replied—
I asked for no money. I was handed a sum of £25, which, I understood, was a present from Her Majesty's Government.and he wont on to say that he had no intention, unless compelled by law, to 548 refund the money. We thought the noble Lord might possibly not be quite aware of the nature of the arrangement made, and a letter—I hope a courteous letter—was written to him on August 16th, explaining fully the circumstances under which these advances had been made. At the close of the letter, I find we stated that—A civilian cannot he exempt from the obligation to repay which is recognised by, and incumbent upon, every officer and man who received the payment. No such gift was made to imprisoned officers and men in Her Majesty's service, and there can obviously be no reason why such a gift should be made to your Lordship.And then, not quite knowing our man, we expressed a pious hope that a refund might be made. The noble Lord replied that our letter savoured of an appeal to his generosity, that it was not explained to him that the money was an advance, and he proceeded to tell us that our conduct, in requiring a settlement from the imprisoned officers, was scandalous, and he ended by announcing that he adhered to his intention to advise the Daily Mail not to refund the grant made to him, "for which I was most grateful." I do not mind telling your Lordships that we consulted the Treasury solicitor, who advised us that, on the whole, it would scarcely be worth our while to institute proceedings with the object of compelling the noble Lord to disgorge this small sum of money, which had unintentionally passed into his possession, and we accordingly left him alone. I do not know whether he is to be altogether congratulated on the result; but, be that as it may, I confess it surprises me that he should come down to your Lordships' House, and proclaim the fact that he has succeeded in retaining possession of a sum of money which it was never intended he should receive, to which he had no moral right whatever, and which other recipients, infinitely more entitled to the generosity of the public, have refunded, without any complaint whatever.
THE Earl of R OSSLYNIf the War Office thought they were entitled to the money, they could just as well have prosecuted a poor man as a man who was able to pay. The Under Secretary himself tells me that a large portion of the money has not been repaid!
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThat includes the officers who have not been heard of since. It is a very small deficit on so large a sum.
THE EARL OF ROSSLYNI can only tell you that I put down this Question on the Paper after consultation with the gentleman in question, Mr. Leigh Wood, who is entirely of opinion that I am right. When I asked him the question, "Is it for civilians as well?" he replied, "It is for every prisoner of war." There was no mention of advances. If the War Office like to have the £25, I shall be pleased to send it to them.