27 MAY 1905, Page 3

• The question of the Transvaal War contribution was raised

in the Commons on Wednesday during the consideration of Clause 7 of the Finance Bill in Committee. In reply to a request from Mr. Dalziel to state whether he considered the guarantee he had received could be regarded as a valuable asset or not, Mr. Chamberlain said that the reason why the loan had not been introduced was that, owing to an unforeseen trade depressions the conditions under which the- contribution was promised did not arise. He admitted that he had been over-sanguine, and, like everybody else, had been disappointed ; but in view of the recent improvement in the situation, he had no reason to doubt that the money would be forthcoming next year, and, if so, held that next year would be the time when they ought to ask the guarantors to do all they could to get the obligation acknow- ledged. He therefore thought that they did possess a valuable asset, and hoped that there would be a majority in the new Assembly who would accept the obligation as an obligation of honour, and would give it legal application. For ourselves, we adhere to the view already expressed in these columns, and put forward on Wednesday by Mr. Emmott. We have got no asset, but only an excuse at some future date for calling a free Colony dishonourable and false to its pledges if it does not do what certain unauthorised private individuals several years before light-heartedly and without any mandate promised that it would do. We see here plenty of likelihood for the creation of bad blood between the Colony and the Mother-country; none for getting the money.