In a despatch dated 20th May, and addressed to Sir Bartle Frere, Lord Kimberley says, "That the sovereignty of the Queen in the Transvaal could not be relinquished."

In a speech in the House of Lords on the 24th May 1880, Lord Kimberley said:—

"There was a still stronger reason than that for not receding; it was impossible to say what calamities such a step as receding might not cause. We had, at the cost of much blood and treasure, restored peace, and the effect of our now reversing our policy would be to leave the province in a state of anarchy, and possibly to cause an internecine war. For such a risk, he could not make himself responsible. The number of the natives in the Transvaal was estimated at about 800,000, and that of the whites less than 50,000. Difficulties with the Zulus and frontier tribes would again arise, and, looking as they must to South Africa as a whole, the Government, after a careful consideration of the question, came to the conclusion that we could not relinquish the Transvaal. Nothing could be more unfortunate than uncertainty in respect to such a matter."

On the 8th June 1880, Mr. Gladstone, in reply to a Boer memorial, wrote as follows:—

"It is undoubtedly a 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 do 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 it that the Queen cannot be advised to relinquish the Transvaal."

Her Majesty's Speech, delivered in Parliament on the 6th January 1881, contains the following words: "A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of vindicating my authority."

These extracts are rather curious reading in face of the policy adopted by the Government, after our troops had been defeated.

III.
A BOER ON BOER DESIGNS.

I reprint here a letter published in The Times of 14th October 1899, together with a prefatory note added by the editor of that journal. This epistle seems to me worthy of the study of thinking men. Much of it, most of it indeed, is mere brutal vapouring, false in its facts, false in its deductions; remarkable only for the livid hues of hate with which it is coloured. Yet in this vile concoction, the work evidently of a half-educated member of the Cape Dutch party, or perhaps of an Afrikander Irishman of the stamp of the late notorious Fenian Aylward, appear statements built upon a basis of truth which we should do well to lay to heart. I allude principally to the question of our food supply and to the possible behaviour of the electorate in the event of a great war under pressure of want and high prices. (See paragraph 3 of the letter of "P. S.") In a very different work, "A Farmer's Year," pages 179 and 380, I have attempted to treat of this great matter which elsewhere has been dealt with also by others more able and perhaps better qualified. Until it is reasonably certain that under any circumstances which we can conceive the price of food stuffs will not be raised to a prohibitive point, it can never be said that the future of Great Britain is assured beyond all probable doubt. When will this problem receive the attention it deserves at the hands of our Governments and of those over whom they rule?

We have received the following letter, appropriately headed "Boer Ignorance." The writer bears a well-known Dutch name, and gives as his late address the name of a well-known town in a Dutch district of Cape Colony:—