The question of the Transvaal contribution was raised in Committee
of Ways and Means on Wednesday, Sir Robert Reid contending that it would be more straightforward to admit at once that there was no hope of realising the expecta- tion of getting the thirty millions from the Transvaal. Mr. Bearley, who took the same view, having appealed to Sir Michael Hicks Beach for his opinion, the latter at once responded. He said that he had never held that the war contribution should be exacted from the Transvaal unless it could be paid out of the mining wealth of the Colony. The means of the Transvaal were not yet sufficient to pay the contribution, but there was reason to believe that a very con- siderable revenue would soon be received by the Transvaal Government, and when that moment did come he believed the debt ought to be paid. From this view we entirely dissent, for reasons which are set forth in another column. For the moment it is enough to note that in describing the proposed contribution as a debt Sir Michael Hicks Beach misrepre- sents the obligation of the Colony as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that " the Government had decided to leave that promise to be redeemed by the Repre- sentative Assembly." Whatever the Representative Assembly may decide to do, they cannot be regarded as bound by an undertaking given by a group of mine-owners. There was no promise by any persons or body competent to bind the Colony.
Previous page
