APPENDIX I.

MR. GLADSTONE'S CONTRADICTIONS.

IN MIDLOTHIAN, NOVEMBER, 1879.

"THEY (the Conservatives) have annexed in Africa the Transvaal territory, inhabited by a free European Christian republican community, which they have thought proper to bring within the limits of a monarchy, although out of 8000 persons in that republic qualified to vote on the subject we are told, and I have never seen the statement officially contradicted, that 6500 protested against it. These are the circumstances under which we undertake to transform republicans into subjects of a monarchy."

"There is no strength to be added to your country by governing the Transvaal. The Transvaal is a country where we have chosen most unwisely, I am tempted to say insanely, to place ourselves in the strange predicament of the free subjects of a monarchy going to coerce the free subjects of a republic, and to compel them to accept a citizenship which they decline and refuse. But if that is to be done, it must be done by force."

AT PEEBLES, APRIL 1ST, 1880.

"That s the meaning of adding places like Cyprus and places like the country of the Boers in South Africa to the British Empire. And, moreover, I would say this, that if those acquisitions were as valuable as they are valueless, I would repudiate them, because they are obtained by means dishonourable to the character of our country."

LETTER TO THE BOER DELEGATES, JUNE, 1880.

"10, Downing Street, Whitehall, "June 8, 1880.

"GENTLEMEN,—I have received your letter of the 10th of May, and I observe that it must have been written before the announcement of the policy of her Majesty's Government, with respect to the Transvaal, made on the 20th of that month, in the speech from the throne, could have reached you. I will not, however, on that account, content myself with a simple acknowledgment.

"It is undoubtedly matter for much regret that it should, since the annexation, have appeared that so large a number of the population of Dutch origin in the Transvaal are opposed to the annexation of that territory, but it is impossible now to consider that question as if it were presented for the first time. We have to deal with a state of things which has existed for a considerable period, during which obligations have been contracted, especially, though not exclusively, towards the native population, which cannot be set aside.

"Looking to all the circumstances, both of the Transvaal and the rest of South Africa, and to the necessity of preventing a renewal of disorders which might lead to disastrous consequences, not only to the Transvaal, but to the whole of South Africa, our judgment is that the Queen cannot be advised to relinquish her sovereignty over the Transvaal; but consistently with the maintenance of that sovereignty we desire that the white inhabitants of the Transvaal should, without prejudice to the rest of the population, enjoy the fullest liberty to manage their local affairs. We believe that this liberty may be most easily and promptly conceded to the Transvaal as a member of a South African Confederation.

MR. GLADSTONE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, JANUARY, 21ST, 1881.

"The report (of the Midlothian speeches) no doubt is accu

rate that I repudiated the policy of the annexations made by the late Government in Cyprus and in the Transvaal, and I very probably added their extension of the Afghan frontier. The hon. member supposes that the word 'repudiate' bears no sense except that of an intention to reverse a thing, although in fact the word does not necessarily bear any such sense at all. (Hear.) I will give the House an illustration of this. I repudiate entirely the speech which the hon. gentleman opposite has just delivered, but I cannot undo that speech and prevent it from having been made, or, I admit, I would do so. (Cheers and laughter.) Still I repudiate the speech just as much as I repudiated the annexation of Cyprus and the Transvaal. To disapprove the annexation of a country is one thing; to abandon that annexation is another. (Hear, hear.) Whatever we do we must not blind ourselves to the legitimate consequences of facts. By the annexation of the Transvaal we contracted new obligations." (Cheers.)

"But on that, at the present time, I consider I have nothing more to say. I must look at the obligations entailed by the annexation, and if in my opinion and in the opinion of many on this side of the House wrong was done by the annexation itself, that would not warrant us in doing fresh, distinct, and separate wrong by a disregard of the obligations which that annexation entailed. (Hear, hear.) Those obligations have been referred to in this debate, and have been mentioned in the compass of a single sentence. First, there was the obligation entailed towards the English and other settlers in the Transvaal, perhaps including a minority, though a very small minority, of the Dutch Boers themselves; secondly, there was the obligation towards the native races; and, thirdly, there was the political obligation we entailed upon ourselves in respect of the responsibility which was already incumbent on us, and which we, by the annexation, largely extended, for the future peace and tranquillity of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) We shall endeavour to give full value to those obligations, and while giving full value to them we shall endeavour, as far as we are able, to weigh every other element of the case and allow it to have that influence on our future conduct and policy to

which, subject to the correction of this House, we may in our conscience believe it to be entitled. And now I come to the motion of my hon. friend, which has led to this interesting discussion. With respect to the first part of the motion, namely, the invitation to express our opinion that the annexation was impolitic and unjustifiable, I am unwilling to concur in a Parliamentary statement to that effect, because I can anticipate from such a Parliamentary statement at the present juncture no advantage either to the public interest of this country or to any other interest, but, on the contrary, an aggravation of the difficulties in which the Government of this country are involved, and an aggravation of the dangers which hang over some of our fellowcreatures, fellow-Christians, and fellow-subjects. With regard to the second part of the motion, my objections are still more pointed. Here, I think, I may almost invoke against my hon. friend, the seconder of the motion, the motion itself, because he in the most candid manner and with that intelligence which belongs to him, did not scruple to admit that we had at present one duty upon us anterior to every other, and that was the duty of vindicating the authority of the Crown. I will not say that the House is in the slightest degree bound by the declarations in the speech from the throne, but the Government is bound by them, and we have advised the Queen to state that a rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon her the duty of taking military measures with the view to a prompt vindication of her authority.' My hon. friend the seconder of the motion referred to the promise which had been given by the late Government of the institution of what I may call a free legislature in the Transvaal, and lamented that that promise should not have been fulfilled; but with regard to that promise, I have not the least doubt that the late Government was precluded, as we have been precluded, and as we must continue to be precluded, till the greater question is thoroughly disposed of. (Hear, hear.) The question of giving free institutions to the Transvaal would never cause the slightest difficulty to either side of the House; but there is the larger question of the relations which are to subsist in future between the Transvaal and the British Crown and the

way in which we are to reconcile the obligations we have undertaken with respect to the future tranquillity of South Africa and the interests of the natives of that country with the desire that we feel to avoid everything like even the appearance of assumption of authority over a free European race adverse to the will of that race. I shall, therefore, say that as her Majesty's Government have advised the Crown to state that the rising in the Transvaal has imposed on the Queen the duty of taking military measures for the prompt vindication of her authority, my second objection to the motion is that the latter part of it is in direct contrariety to the announcement made from the throne."

MR. GLADSTONE IN JUNE, 1881.

Letter to the Chairman of the Loyalists.

"June 1, 1881.

SIR,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a communication signed by yourself and by Mr. Farrell on behalf of a committee of the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal.

"I observe that a document of a more formal character is promised, and for this as well as other reasons I will not notice in full detail the several allegations in the paper before me.

"At the same time I desire to state, with respect and sympathy, as much as appears to be material.

"It is stated, as I observe, that a promise was given by me that the Transvaal never should be given back. There is no mention of the terms or date of this promise. If the reference be to my letter of the 8th of June, 1880, to Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, I do not think the language of that letter justifies the description given.

"Nor am I sure in what manner or to what degree the fullest liberty to manage their own local affairs, which I then said her Majesty's Government desired to confer on the white population of the Transvaal, differs from the settlement now about being made in its bearing on the interests of those whom your committee represents.

"This object her Majesty's Government hoped might have been attained by means of a South African Confederation.