[Publications of the National Union, No. L.] 
 
 PEACE WITH DISHONOUE. 
 
 A SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS, 
 
 MARCH 31sT, 1881. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. EARL CAIRNS, 
 
 The Arrangements made by Her Majesty's 
 
 Government with the Boers in the 
 
 Transvaal. 
 
 CORRECTED ON AUTHORITY. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 NATIONAL UNION OF CONSERVATIVE *& CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 ASSOCIATIONS, 
 
 8T. STEPHEN'S CHAMBERS, BRIDGE STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W. 
 APRIL, 1831.
 
 THE TRANSVAAL. 
 
 SPEECH OF EARL CAIRNS IN THE HOUSE 
 OF LORDS, March 31st, 1881. 
 
 EARL CAIRNS, in calling attention to the arrangements recently 
 
 made by Her Majesty's Government with the Boers, "said : It is now 
 
 nearly three months since Parliament met. During that time, owino- 
 probably to the pressure of other business, very little has been said 
 of a subject which has nevertheless greatly occupied the public 
 mind, the state of affairs in South Africa, and especially in the 
 Transvaal. We were informed at the beginning of the Session in 
 the most gracious Speech from the Throne, that there had been a 
 rising in the Transvaal, and that military operations weje in progress 
 for the purpose of suppressing that rising, and vindicating the 
 authority of the Crown. After that we heard of successive disasters 
 to the British forces. There had been before the end of the yeai- 
 an attack upon the 9-ith Regiment at Madder's Spruit; then in 
 January the reverse at Lang's Nek ; and in February, ' first the 
 battle at Ingogo, and subsequently the defeat at Majuba. ' We then 
 heard that reinforcements had been rapidly and enerc^etically 
 prepared and sent forward to retrieve these disasters, ancf that a 
 General who had won his laurels in the East had been sent 
 out to command the reinforcements and to co-operate with, another 
 General, hardly less trusted, who had already arrived on the scene. 
 In these circumstances the spirit of the country was sus- 
 tained. They put trust in the exertions which were bein*^ 
 made, and they relied upon the assurance they had received 
 from the Government that the authority of the Crown 
 would be vindicated. We then heard that there were arran<Te- 
 ments and negotiations in progress. The Government naturaTly 
 had a right to decline to enter upon any discussion of those 
 negotiations while they still were in progress, and, on the other 
 hand, it would have been wrong to press the Government for any 
 information at that stage of the proceedings. But still the public 
 relied on the assurance they had received, and in this 
 House we had obtained a still further assurance. The noble 
 Earl the Secretary of State, when the subject was mentioned on 
 the 21st of February, told us that **Her Majesty's Government 
 are taking steps to procure a satisftictory settlement consistently 
 with the honour of the British Crown." (Hear, hear.) As the
 
 4 
 
 Speech from the Throne had announced that the authority of the- 
 Crown would be vindicated, so we understood that the Secretary of 
 State desired to assure us that the honour of the Crown was involved^ 
 in vindicating that authority. Then we received the information that 
 the arrangements were conchided and that a peace had been made. 
 The idea of peace and of a cessation of hostihties is always so- 
 welcome that we were disposed to hail with satisfaction the new8 
 of this arrangement, and of this peace, and we naturally imagined' 
 that, although the terms were not known, yet when they came to^ 
 be known it would be found that they fully redeemed the promises 
 which had been made by the Crown. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's 
 Government have now laid upon the table the telegraphic papers 
 connected with this arrangement. I do not know how much of the 
 satisfaction which first was felt any longer remains. (Cheers.) Some 
 details there are which still are wanting, and with regard to those- 
 details my object is to ask the Secretary of State to favour us with 
 some information on matters on which we are Ifeft in doubt by the 
 papers before us. But the leading features of the arrangement are 
 clear, and although it may not be the time, until every detail has 
 been supplied, for your lordships to pronounce any formal opinion 
 upon the peace that has been concluded, still I think Her Majesty's 
 Government have a right to know when the papers have been, as far 
 as they have been, laid before us, what is the opinion which may bo 
 entertained by us with regard to this arrangement ; and they would 
 be entitled to say they naturally concluded, when so much information 
 was laid before us, that we were satisfied wath that whiph had 
 been done when we expressed no dissatisfaction. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 I will ask your lordships to remember what the state of affairs was 
 at the commencement of the Session. It was on the 20th of Pecem- 
 ber that the aflair which some people called, and not incorrectly, a 
 massacre at Madder's Spruit took place. A portion of the 94th Regi- 
 ment was on its march under the command of Colonel Anstruther. I 
 do not stop, however, to consider at this moment the precise nature 
 of the occurrence which took place, but your lordships remember that 
 in the result some 70 or 80 out of a force of 157 were killed, and that 
 several, if not all, of the officers were among the number. After 
 this an appeal was made to the Secretary of State from the colony 
 of Natal. Your lordships will find in the Blue Book which was 
 presented to Parliament in February a communication which was 
 made to the Secretary of State on the 29th of December through 
 Sir George Strahan. A deputation of the Legislature of Natal and 
 others requested Sir George to send to the Secretary of State a^ 
 resolution by telegraph. It was in these terms : — 
 
 " A deputation, composed of 15 members of the Legislatm-e and others, Mr 
 Merriman spokesman, request me to send the following resolution by telegraph- 
 — : That this deputation, in common with the restof South Africa, deplores the 
 unhappy state of affairs no\v existing across the Yaal Ri-ver, and ventures to 
 urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, in order to effect a settlement of the 
 differences which have arisen and to establish tranquility, it is desirable that 
 some person acquainted with the feelings and opinions of the inhabitants of ^^^^ 
 
 /^\ 
 , UIUC -,
 
 South Africa should be appointed as a Special Commissioner to the Transvaal 
 territory to enquire into and report upon the exact position of affairs, the feel- 
 ings and wishes of those intx^rested, and what arrangements would be most 
 advantageous to the country and most likely to reconcile the inhabitants to the 
 Government of the Queen ; and the deputation would further respectfully 
 suggest that the Chief Justice of the Cape Colony, Sir J. H. De Villiers, possesses 
 in an eminent degree the qualifications required for such an ofllce." 
 
 That was a proposal which at that time, I think, was not un- 
 natural. It was one which might well have been entertained, and 
 iifthis eminent person, who is said to possess the confidence of all 
 the parties there, and who indeed is one of the three Commissioners 
 recently selected, had been appointed at that time, it is possible 
 that we might have been spared much of what has occurred. But 
 the view of the Secretary of State at the time was different. He 
 replied, by telegraph, on the 30th of December, to Sir George 
 Strahan as follows : — 
 
 " Inform the deputation that, while fully appreciating their motives, we do 
 not think the present moment will be opportune for sending a Special Commis- 
 sioner to the Transvaal." 
 
 That was the opinion of the Secretaiy of State at that 
 ;time. I think we shall find the ground of that opinion ap- 
 pearing again in the most gracious Speech from, the Throne. 
 The same motives which led the noble Earl to conceive that 
 ■December was not the proper time to meet the proposal which had 
 been made, probably influenced Her Majesty's Government in 
 putting into the mouth of Her Majesty the words of the Speech 
 from the Throne. (Hear, hear.) Parliament met on the 6th of 
 January, and I will ask your attention to these words which were 
 then addressed from the Throne to your lordships : — 
 
 " A rising in the Transvaal has recnitly imposed upon me the duty of taking 
 vniilitary measures with a view to the prompt vindication of niy authority, and 
 "has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European 
 settlers that full control over their own local affairs, without prejudice to the 
 interests of the natives, which I have been desirous to confer." 
 
 In the Address presented by your lordships in answer to that most 
 gracious speech yon thanked Her Majesty for the information we 
 had received that the authority of the Crown would be promptly 
 vindicated, and that not until that was done could the time arrive 
 for conferring the boon upon the European settlers that was 
 indicated in the latter part of the sentence which I have 
 just read. " Rising in the Transvaal," of course, means a 
 rebellion or insurrection : and I now wish to ask the Secretary of 
 State whether the authority of the Crown has been promptly 
 vindicated in the Transvaal ? (Cheers.) Has the action at Lang's 
 Nek promptly vindicated the authority of the Crown? (Cheers.) 
 Has the reverse at Ingogo? Has the disaster at the Majuba? (Cheers.) 
 I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he conceives that after 
 these occurrences the authority of the Crown stood in a higher and
 
 6 
 
 l)etter position than on the 6th of January last, and if it did 
 not what has become of your prompt vindication of the authority 
 of the Crovv^n ? (Cheers.) But I wish to call your lordships' atten- 
 tion to the second part of the sentence. The duty of vindicating 
 the authority of the Crown has, it is stated, " set aside for the time 
 the plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over 
 their own local affairs without prejudice to the interests of the 
 natives which I have been desirous to confer." Do these words, 
 I ask, in the mouth of the Sovereign point to a cession of 
 territory ? Do they point to an abandonment of territory ? Do 
 they point to a dismemberment of the empire? (Cheers.) When 
 the Government, through the mouth of the Sovereign upon the 
 Thi'one, speak of conferring free institutions upon a portion of the 
 British dominions, it is understood that the Sovereignty of Her Ma- 
 jesty over that portion of the Empire is retained; that while there may 
 be an alteration in the form of government, the Sovereignty remains 
 where it stood before. ( Cheers.) I challenge Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment to produce any instance in anj' State paper in existence where 
 words of this kind in a speech from the Throne were used to indicate or 
 denote the dismemberment of the empire (cheers) — that is to say, 
 abandon the country and leave it free to establish a republic or 
 any form of government they pleased. Upon those words in Her Ma- 
 jesty's most gracious Speech I have a few questions to put to the 
 Secretary of State. Is the arrangement spokpn of in the Speech from 
 the Throne, and which was at that time contemplated by the Govern- 
 ment, the same as that which has now actually been made with regard 
 to the Transvaal ? If it is not — if it is a different arrangement — will 
 the Secretary of State allow me further to ask him, when did the 
 change in the opinions of the Government take place, and why ? 
 (Cheers.) If, on the other hand, the Secretary of State says it is 
 the same arrangement which w'as contemplated by the Government 
 at the time of Her Majesty's gracious Speech, I wish to know why 
 was that arrangement misdescribed in the words I have read '? 
 (Cheers.) Why was Parliament, I won't say left in ignorance, but 
 misled as to what was intended by the Government ? (Cheers.) Why 
 were words put into the mouth of our most gracious Sovereign which, 
 according to every interpretation of words coming from such a 
 source, meant that the sovereignty of the Transvaal was to be 
 retained ? (Cheers.) But I have a further question to ask. If the 
 an-angement which has actually been made is that contemplated at the^ 
 time of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, and if the authority 
 of the Crown has not been vindicated, I want to know what we 
 have been fighting about in the interval ? (Cheers.) If this ar- 
 rangement is what was intended, why did you not give it at once ? 
 Why did you spend the treasure of the country, and still more, why 
 did you shed the blood of the country like water, only to 
 give at the end what you had intended to give at the begin- 
 ning ? (Cheers.) We know that there are those who have lost in 
 the Transvaal that which was dearer to them than the light oi
 
 their eyes. They have been consoled with the reflection that the 
 brave men who died, died fighting for their Queen and their 
 country. Are the mourners now to be told that those men were 
 fighting for a country which the Government had determined to 
 abandon, and that they were fighting for a Queen who was no 
 longer to be the Sovereign of that country? (Cheers.) 
 
 But let us go a little further into the history of this matter. I wish 
 to know when it was that the idea in the mind of the Government of 
 vindicating the authority of the Crown was abandoned. There is 
 a very remarkable passage in one of the orders issued by the Secre- 
 tary of State to Sir George Collej^ On the 5th of February the 
 Secretary of State telegraphed Sir George Colley in these words : — 
 
 " I think it right to intimate to joii, as you have insti'uctions to assume the 
 functions of Governor when you are able to enter the Transvaal, that whenever 
 you may succeed in re-establishing the Queen's authority there, all questions 
 affecting the future administration and settlement of the country, as well as 
 questions as to dealing with those who have taken part against the Government 
 should be reserved by you for the cons ideration of Her Majesty's Government." 
 
 That is a very instructive telegram. It shows at once the con- 
 struction put at that time by the Government upon the most 
 gracious Speech from the Throne, and that construction is, I think, 
 exactly that which ought to be put upon it. The re-establishment of 
 the Queen's authority in the Transvaal was the tksk which the 
 Government put before Sir George Colley, and the re-establish- 
 ment of the Queen's authority was the vindication of that 
 authority, (Cheers.) But what becomes of these instructions? 
 The next thing we have is a communication from the President of 
 the Orange Free State — Mr. Brand . How Mr. Brand came to be set in 
 motion I do not know, and it is not my business to conjecture. There 
 are various theories on this subject, but I take what I find in these 
 papers. On the 5th of February, the day on which the Secretary of 
 State telegraphed to Sir George Colley, a proposal came from Mr. 
 Brand through Sir George Colley that , the Boers should not be 
 treated as rebels "if they submitted." How was that received by the 
 Secretary of State ? We are here on the first step of a descending 
 scale, which is of an interesting character. The Secretary of State 
 adopts the expression of " submission." He telegraphs to Sir 
 George Colley, 
 
 " I have received your telegram of the 5th, Inform Mr. Brand that Her 
 Majesty's Government will be ready to give all reasonable guarantees as to the 
 treatment of the Boers after submission.'' 
 
 The question, consequently, now comes to be. What was meant by 
 the submission of the Boers ? Well, the submission of rebels means, 
 I apprehend, that they should lay down their arms, and that they 
 should give up the strong places which they occupy in opposition to 
 the Queen. (Cheers.) Unless these things are done, there is no 
 submission at all. But to continue the history of the matter, 
 which is very curious. On the same day — that is to say, the 5th 
 of February — took place the battle of the Ingogo, and from that day
 
 8 
 
 the word *' submission" disappears from the telegrams. (Cheers.) 
 It never occurs again. On the 16th of February I Und a telegram 
 from the Secretary of State to Sir E. Wood in these terms: — 
 
 ••Inform Kruger that if Boers will desist from armed opposition" (there is 
 no reference to submission now) we shall be quite Veady to appoint Commis- 
 sioners with extensive powers, who may develop the scheme referred to in my 
 telegram to you of the Sth inst. Add that if this proposal is accepted, you are. 
 authorized to agree to suspension of hostilities on our part." 
 Submission is now removed out of the question. The proposal now is 
 that the Boers should cease from armed opposition. Now, I want 
 to know, what is the meaning of the Boers ceasing from armed opposi- 
 tion ? What were the Boers doing ? The Boers were in the Transvaal. 
 Our garrisons were beleaguered there. Our forces were marching 
 up to reheve our garrisons, and to re-establish our authority in the 
 Transvaal. The Boers were opposing the advance of our troops. 
 That was the position of things. We were moving ; they were 
 opposing. " If the Boers would desist from armed opposition." 
 The meaning of that is that our troops were no longer to be interfered 
 with, that they were to continue their march, that the garrisons 
 wore to be relieved, and that our troops were to establish authority 
 in the Transvaal. (Cheers.) But nothing of the kind was intended, and 
 nothing of the kind was done. That was what embarrassed Sir 
 G. Colley, and he said, "I understand what this means if we are 
 to go on and the Boers are to cease ; but do you mean that we 
 are to cease and that that is to be the way in which opposition 
 is to come to an end?" Sir G. Colley asks very naturally the 
 question, ''Am I to leave our garrisons isolated? Is that what 
 you mean by the Boers ceasing from armed opposition ? " These are 
 his words : " Latter part of your telegram to Wood not understood. 
 There can be no hostilities if no resistance is made : but am 
 I to leave Lang's Nek in Natal territory in Boer occupation, 
 and our garrisons isolated and short of provisions, or occupy 
 former and relieve latter?" The Secretary of State answers that 
 the garrisons should be free to provision themselves, and peaceful 
 intercourse with them allowed, but he adds, " We do not mean 
 that you should march to the relief of the garrisons or occupy Lang's 
 Nek, if the arrangement proceeds." What was the consequence ? 
 Did opposition cease ? Opposition, my lords, triumphed (cheers) ; 
 it was we who ceased. (Cheers.) " Opposition" had nothing to go 
 on for; it got everything it wanted. (Hear, hear.) We now 
 come to the battle of Majuba on the 20th of February. What 
 was the advice of Sir E. Wood under the circumstances ? Did 
 he say, " Cease from opposition ; let nothing more be done ?" 
 Would that be very like Sir E. Wood ? (Hear, hear.) He gave 
 some very striking and pointed advice to Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment. That advice your lordships will find at page 21 of the 
 White Book which I hold in my hand. He says : — 
 
 '•Eefleeting on similar struggles in history, I do not attach much 
 importance to punishing leaders, as did Sir G. Colley, though I 
 would not i-ecommend allowing them to remain in Transvaal, nor 
 would I accept them as representatives of people. In discussing settle-
 
 ment of country my constant endeavoui- shall be to carry out the spirit of your 
 orders, but, considering the disasters we have sustained, I think that the 
 happiest result will be that, after accelerating successful action which I hope to 
 fight in about 14 days, the Boers should disperse without any guarantee, and then 
 many now imdoubtedly coerced will readily settle down." 
 
 Sir E. Wood knew that reinforcements were at hand, the strength 
 of the position he was occupying, and he spoke as any one, 
 humanly speakiag, would have spoken under the ciroiimstances, 
 with the perfect certainty of the success of the exertions which 
 he was ready to make. (Cheers.) I think it canuot be 
 doubted by any person that when our reinforcements came up 
 there would have been no bloodshed, and that the matter would 
 have been settled with, probably, hardly any exchange of 
 hostilities. (Hear.) But, at all events, that was the opinion of 
 Sir E. Wood, but no notice seems to have been taken of it by the 
 Government at home. The phrase about ceasing from armed op- 
 position was repeated and repeated in every telegram from that 
 time from Downing Street, and nothing else. (Hear, hear.) The 
 first variation of the phrase, so far as I can find, came not from 
 Downing Street, but from Mr. Ki'uger. The Boers are very shrewd 
 men. They are not misled by captivating phrases, and what 
 did Mr. Kruger think of this phrase, " cease from armed opposi- 
 tion ? " He put a construction on it which your Jordships will 
 find at page 28. He said. — " We are very grateful for the 
 declaration in the name of Her Majesty's Government that 
 under certain conditions, they are inclined to cease hostili- 
 ties." (Cheers, and a laugh.) It is not the Boers, you will 
 observe, it is the Government who are inclined to cease 
 from hostilities. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Kruger quite understood 
 the telegram : he read between the lines ; he is a clever man, and 
 he does not talk about the Boers ceasing opposition, but of the 
 disposition of the English Government to take that course. But 
 what, let me ask, was the final basis on which Mr. Ki'uger came 
 into this arrangement ? There was no repudiation of the construc- 
 tion which he put on the otfer of the Government. As your 
 lordships will find at page 25, he would have nothing whatever to 
 do with the telegram of the Secretary of State of February 8, and 
 the reason he gives is that if he accepted it, it would be like 
 admitting that ' the Boers were in the wrong. He speaks of hold- 
 ing to Sir G. CoUey's telegram of the IGth of February, a letter 
 of the 21st of February, another telegram of the 12th of 
 February, and a letter of the 29th of January. These are four 
 documents which Mr. Kruger puts forward, and he says that it 
 is upon the footing of these four documents that he is prepared 
 to enter into negotiations. Here I may say that I have a question 
 to put to the Secretary of Stc.te which is of some importance. 
 [The Eakl of Kimberley said it might be well to inform the 
 noble^and .learned lord ^ at once that he had never j^been put in 
 possession of the telegram of the 16th of | February nor the letter 
 of the 21st. That of the 29th of January he only saw in the news- 
 papers.] Nothing can be further from my intention than to suggest
 
 10 
 
 that the Secretary of State is in possession of those documents. 
 I know his candour too well to doubt that if they were in his 
 possession he would have laid them on the table. But there is 
 something more important. This telegram was brought to the 
 notice of the Secretary of State, in which Mr. Kruger says, "Now, 
 understand, I am going to enter into negotiations with you on the 
 footing of these four documents." The Secretary of State says he 
 has not got the documents, but without them how could he know 
 how the negotiations were to be conducted, or what Mr. Kruger 
 meant ? Why did not the noble earl say, the moment he got this 
 telegram, " I do not know what you refer to ; you speak of docu- 
 ments which ought to be in the possession of the Government but 
 which are not." But I pass to something still more important. 
 What is the final statement of Mr. Kruger in his telegram ? It is 
 this, that the only basis on which he will enter into negotiations is 
 the restoration of the Republic. Short of that he says he will not 
 treat, and with that document before them the Government, if they 
 entered into negotiations, of course did so on the terms of Mr. Kruger, 
 which embraced the restoration of the Republic. (Cheers.) That is 
 the common sense of the matter, whether you are dealing with 
 Boers or Englishmen. So much for the history of the transaction. 
 These, then, my Lords, are the six stages of the " Surrender's 
 Progress," they are almost worthy of the pencil of a Hogarth. 
 There is first a patriotic and almost passionate determination to 
 vindicate and restore the authority of the Crown. In the second 
 place comes a lower ofi'er — let there be at least submission on the 
 part of the Boers. Thirdly, we reach by this ladder of degrada- 
 tion, a still lower platform — no longer vindication of the authority of 
 the Crown, no longer submission, but cessation from armed 
 opposition with a strong intimation that there would be nothing to 
 oppose. (Cheers.) What comes next ? The advice of your 
 General to settle the country by acting on your military power, 
 and that advice disregarded. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Kruger then 
 comes upon the scene, and his view is, "It is you, and not we 
 who are to cease from hostilities." And what is the last ? Mr. 
 Kruger again says, " Cease from hostilities ; go into negotiation, 
 but only on the terms of our having everything we ever asked 
 for, including the restoration of the Republic." (Cheers.) 
 
 Well, now I come to the terms of this surrender. In the first 
 place, I have a question to ask as to the authority of the persons 
 with whom you are treating. Have you thought who they are 
 who were negotiating with you, and with whom you have made 
 your agreement ? What are we told about this in the papers before 
 us ? The first intimation we have is the view of Sir E. Wood, 
 who as I said just now, stated that he would not treat with Mr. 
 Joubert or Mr. Kruger. He did not accept them as the repre- 
 sentatives of the people. That was his view. What was the 
 view of the Secretary of State ? He did not agree with the 
 view of Sir E. Wood, and answered him in these words
 
 11 
 
 — *' We should make no" exception as to the persons with whom 
 we will negotiate, requiring only that they should be duly 
 authorized representatives of the Boers, with power to act on their 
 behalf." How were they duly authorized ? Will the Secretary of 
 State inform us ? I am bound to say, on behalf of Messrs. Kruger 
 and Joubert, that they seem to have very great doubt about their 
 own authority. They at every turn tell you that they are shaking 
 in their shoes for fear their acts will be repudiated by the Boers. 
 And what finally did they say to Sir E. Wood ? Sir E. Wood 
 said, " They asked, had I the power to recognize him (Kruger) 
 as representing the Boer Government, and did I represent 
 the English ? I replied ' Yes.' " Well, it was quite true 
 that Sir E. Wood represented the English, but had he the 
 power to accept Ki'uger as representing the Boer Government? 
 The Secretary of State required that the persons with whom we 
 should negotiate should be duly authorized. I find no authority 
 whatever. (Cheers.) This is not a mere technicality ; I should 
 think very little of the point if it were. It is a matter of very con- 
 siderable importance. Mr. Kruger is undoubtedly very apprehensive 
 as to whether his acts will not be repudiated. We see every day in 
 the ordinary channels of information that the opinion commonly enter- 
 tained in the neighbourhood is that it is likely there will be a civil 
 war, and that there are two parties, if not more, in the country. 
 Well, if there should be a civil war, which side are we going to 
 take ? Ai'e we going to side with the loyal Boers against the Trium» 
 vu'ate, or with the Triumvirate against the loyal Boers ? (Cheers.) 
 Suppose that everything that Kruger has done should be 
 disavowed, what is to happen ? If this were a matter that would 
 be finished and done with when done, I could understand our 
 being ready to run some risk. But this is an arrangement which is 
 to run on for six months. There are all sorts of things to be done 
 under it, and if these things are not done the arrangement will not be 
 of the slightest value to us. If it comes to pass that the acts of those 
 who made this arrangement are repudiated, we shall have no power 
 to insist upon the performance of any of the things to be done under 
 it. Is it consistent with the dignity or with the interest of this 
 country to accept the words of a Triumvirate who have with con- 
 siderable violence seized upon the government and to assume that 
 they have authority to bind all the inhabitants of that country ? 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 Now let me come to the terms. The first is — "the right of 
 the Transvaal people to complete self-government." I want, 
 in the first place, to know how it came to pass that this term, 
 conceding at once complete self-government (as it is called) was 
 made by Sir E. Wood ? I think something has dropped out here 
 — some paper is missing. Of course, I don't mean to say that the 
 Secretary of State has it, but it must be somewhere. But how 
 does the matter stand according to the evidence of the book before 
 us ? The Secretary of State, on March 12, said — '• The Commis-
 
 12 
 
 sion would be authorised to consider the following points," and the 
 first is " complete self-government under British suzerainty." The 
 Commission would be • authorized to do that — that is to say, that 
 when the Commission was appointed it would take the matter into 
 consideration and determine whether there should be self-govern- 
 ment, and in what form. I suppose that is the meaning of the 
 words. Well, what happened next ? Your lordships will remember 
 Mr. Kruger's communication, in which he says — "I am going into 
 the conference upon the basis of the restoration of the Republic, 
 and upon no other basis." I find on the part of the Secretary of 
 State neither any acceptance of what Mr. Kruger said nor any re- 
 pudiation of it — nothing about it. The next step is the stipulation 
 by Sir E. Wood that there should be complete self-government. 
 Now, when did the Secretary of State authorize3,that stipulation to 
 be made ? What he did authorize was that the Commission should 
 consider it. What is done is that the stipulation is with- 
 out any reference to the Commission, actually made and 
 agreed to. I know Sir E. Wood pretty well, and I am satisfied 
 that he never went an inch beyond the authority given him. What 
 I want to know is the way in which the authority was given him. 
 Will the Secretary of State give us the information ? Is the Secre- 
 tary of State, or is he not, the head of Jthe Colonial Office ? Is 
 somebody else conducting these negotiations ? (Cheers.) I 
 trust we may have an explanation of this matter for the sake of Sir 
 E.Wood, if for no other reason. (Hear, hear.) My next observa- 
 tion is this : We have got here the term '' complete self-government 
 to be given to the Boers." Those are not Sir E. Wood's words. He 
 is a soldier who does not use jargon of that kind. He talks plain Eng- 
 lish, and never called the abandonment of the territory of the Crown and 
 the setting up of a Republic complete self-government. (Cheers.) 
 That is not what a soldier would call it. (Hear, hear.) I think 
 it is impossible not to see what these terms were inserted for. 
 Their insertion is an effort — a feeble eJBFort — to square what was 
 done with the words of the most gracious Speech from the Throne. 
 (Cheers.) If you had said what was true — I mean what was accurate 
 — you would have said, *' The Transvaal is ceded to the Boers ; the 
 annexation is cancelled ; the Republic is restored, and the Queen 
 has no longer anything to say to the territory." (Hear, hear.) 
 That is the English of what is being done. Who can doubt that 
 that is the real effect of these transactions? (Hear, hear.) The 
 Transvaal at this moment is the property of the Crown. When 
 this treaty is carried out, the Transvaal will cease to be the 
 property of the Crown. Is that not dismemberment of the Empire ? 
 Is that not cession of territory ? Is that not abandonment of the 
 dominions of the Queen ? And, forsooth, you call this, as if you were 
 giving free institutions to a colony, local self-government ! (Cheers.) 
 My Lords, you are giving Ireland a pretty lesson as to what you 
 mean by local self-government. (Hear, hear.) Our fellow subjects 
 across the channel are very fond of using that term. Take care
 
 18 
 
 that you do not teach them it has a meaning which will make them 
 still fonder of it. (Cheers.) 
 
 But now, I have something more to say upon the subject of this 
 cession of territory. I do not desire to raise any legal question 
 at this moment, but I wish to enter my protest against this strain- 
 ing and stretching of the prerogative of the Crown. We have 
 heard a good deal of late years in the way of charge against 
 straining the prerogative of the Crown. Take care, lest you 
 strain it as it has never been strained before. I want to know 
 what right the Crown has to abandon territory. It is a very 
 difficult question, about which a good deal could be said. I recollect 
 what was done in the case of the Orange Free State. There was 
 much doubt entertained as to how that State was to be given up, and 
 in great doubt the Secretary of State at the time determined under 
 the peculiar circumstances of the case to repeal Letters Patent 
 by an Order in Council and not to ask for an Act of Parliament. 
 But in the case of the Orange Free State there had been no war, and 
 the Imperial Parliament had never legislated upon the subject. In the 
 case of the Transvaal the subjects of the Queen were in rebellion, 
 and the English Parliament had stepped in and haa voted money and 
 legislated in a form which embraced the Transvaal. But, my lords, 
 do you recollect what was done a hundred years ago jn the case of 
 the American States ? Did the Crown cede those States by 
 its prerogative? Look back at the statutes. You will find 
 there an Act of Parliament which authorized the Crown to cede 
 those States, and until that Act was passed the Crown was not 
 authorized to treat with the rebels and to cede that territory. My 
 lords, I do not wish to encumber the case with any further argu- 
 ment upon the point ; but I desire to express my grave doubts as 
 to the course which the Government are pursuing. If they are 
 right by the letter (which I doubt) they are certainly grievously 
 straining the spirit of the prerogative. 
 
 Well, now I come to the next term, " Protection for the natives 
 of the Transvaal." Protection for the natives of the Transvaal ! 
 That is indeed something to provide for. The Commission, we 
 are told, at page 7, will have to consider what securities shall be 
 taken as to the future treatment of the natives. What " securities ?" 
 Now, my lords, let me say a few words upon this question. What 
 are ''the natives of the Transvaal?" There seems to be some 
 doubt about their number. Nobody says they are less than 
 400,000 ; some say 500,000. [Lord Kimbekley.— About 700,000.] 
 I believe the number is nearer 700,000 but I wished to be under 
 the mark. These four or five or six or seven hundred thousand 
 are now subjects of the Crown of England, and beyond all doubt 
 so far as they are concerned they desire to remain subjects of the 
 Crown. The Commission, you say, is to consider how they ai'e to 
 be protected. But what are they to be protected against ? There 
 is one thing they have to be protected from, which we find described 
 in a despatch of the Administrator, Sir Owen Lanyon. The way
 
 u 
 
 in which he describes their state is this — your lordships will find 
 it on page 6 of his letters : — 
 
 " The unfortunate natives have suffered most from this outbreak because of 
 their loyalty to Her Majesty. Numerous instances have been reported in 
 which they have been wantonly shot down. They have been forced to work in 
 the camps, and their property and cattle taken to supply the commissariat of 
 men who had large flocks and herds of their own to draw upon. Were any- 
 thing needed to show the necessity of Her Majesty's rule over the Transvaal it 
 would be found in the reign of terror which exists and the sufferings which 
 have been imposed upon these unfortunate natives." 
 
 But that is not by any means all. What is the history of these 
 Boers ? In the years 1833-4-5, after Great Britain had abolished 
 slavery, the Boers fretted against the restraints of our law of 
 freedom, and they left the Cape Colony, in which they 
 had been living, and "trekked," as it is called, over the bor- 
 der and went up beyond the Vaal. In the year 1852 a treaty 
 was made. We knew what their habits were; that they were 
 slave- owners ; that it was agreeable to their notion of right. The 
 Sand River Convention was made in 1852. One of the terms 
 was that there was to be no slavery north of a certain limit. My 
 lords, you know that that term of the Convention has been con- 
 tinuously and systematically disregarded. The Boers have practised 
 slavery. My lords, they practise it now in a way which is 
 extremely formidable to deal with, because it is not as if the moral 
 sentiment of the people were against slavery, and only certain 
 wrongdoers were violating the law. But the Boers have not 
 brought the mild and beneficent influence of Christianity to bear 
 upon their understanding of Holy Writ. They go back to the Old 
 Testament, and they find in it — or they think they find in it — a 
 justification for these practices ; and they hold that if slavery is 
 not a divine institution it is at least permitted. What is the 
 practice of these people ? I take one authority — I might 
 adduce fifty from the Blue Books, but I select one authority from 
 one of the Blue Books, which is a statement given by an unpre- 
 judiced witness. It is from a Colonial newpaper, the Cape Argus — 
 
 " The whole world may know it, for it is true, and investigation will only 
 bring out the horrible details, that through the whole coui-se of this Republic's 
 existence it has acted in contravention of the Sand River Convention, and 
 slavery has occurred, not only here and there in isolated cases, but as an 
 unbroken practice has been one of the peculiar institutions of the country, 
 mixed up with all its social and political life. It has been at the root of most 
 of its wars ; it has been carried on regidarly even in the times of peace." 
 
 That description geems to me to be of great and grave importance. 
 (Hear, hear.) But, my lords, even in the legislation of this people 
 you will find sanctioned that which is, under a thin disguise, actual 
 slavery. The disguise is the guardianship of orphans. In the 
 Transvaal it would appear, as some one has said, as if all the black 
 children were orphans. (Laughter.) Every child which they can 
 get hold of is subjected to that which, in their views, is perfectly 
 legitimate. We heard in this House only three weeks ago, from
 
 16 
 
 the lips of the Secretary of State himself, the story of the Boer chief 
 who brought home over the border, or from some other quarter, 32 
 Caftre girls, whom he sold for 10s apiece in his own neighbourhood. 
 (Hear, hear.) Now, my lords, this is the nation you have to deal 
 with. These are the four five six or seven hundred thousand 
 people whom you have to protect. This is the system against 
 which you have to protect them. My lords, this country has made 
 great sacrifices, great exertions for the purpose of suppressing or 
 extirpating slavery. I shall be surprised, indeed, if this country 
 tolerates the handing back into that which is really a liability to 
 slavery, a nation of hundreds of thousands of people who, at this 
 moment, are free British subjects. (Cheers.) If this thing is to be 
 done, at all events, it shall not be done in a corner. It shall be 
 done in the light of day, and as far as my feeble voice can reach, I 
 will endeavour to explain and expose the real character of the act 
 which is to be done. (Cheers.) Well, but you say, the Commis- 
 sion is to consider the question of the treatment of the natives. 
 What can the Commission do ? What is the protection which 
 these people require ? Recollect what the Transvaal is. It is a 
 country larger than France. Homesteads are scattered over the 
 country twenty or thirty miles, or much more, apart from each 
 other. And what you have to watch over and superintend is 
 what goes on in each of these homesteads. My lords, how is 
 that to be done? Are you going to occupy the country with 
 an armed occupation? What less are you going to do?* 
 There is one protection and one only which can avail for the 
 protection of the coloured people. That is the protection of 
 courts of justice, deriving their authority from the British Crown, 
 and supported by the power of the British Crown. Unless 
 every native of the Transvaal can come before a British court 
 of justice and say, " I am a free man, or a free boy, or a free girl, 
 and I demand the protection of the British Crown as a British 
 subject ;" until that can done, day after day, there can be no protec- 
 tion for the native inhabitants of the country. (Cheers.) My lords, 
 I read just now from the gracious Speech from the Throne some 
 words which I did not think at the time had the meaning which it 
 now appears they bear. It is the passage which speaks of securing 
 the rights of European settlers " without prejudice to the interests of 
 the natives." Without prejudice ! It ends like a lawyer's letter. 
 My lords, is it possible that the annihilation of the rights of 700,000 
 British subjects in the matter of freedom is to be spoken of as an 
 arrangement which is not to prejudice the rights of the natives ? 
 (Cheers.) My lords, I recollect when this country was greatly 
 moved at certain instructions from the Admiralty which were sup- 
 posed to imply that a slave who took refuge in an English ship might 
 be surrendered to his owner. Has this country so altered its views 
 
 *The Secretary of State in reply to this question answered, " The stipulation 
 which was made at the Sand River Convention will be simply renewed " — 
 Times, April I, 1881.
 
 16 
 
 with regard to slavery that it will permit hundreds of thousands of 
 British subjects to be handed back to a system which really is slavery 
 as much as any slavery that ever prevailed in the world ? (Cheers.) 
 What comes next? " The control of foreign relations is to be 
 reserved." What, my lords, is the meaning of that term ? I 
 know what this term means in the Congress Halls of Vienna, or 
 Berhn, or Paris, or London. What I want to know is the meaning 
 of the term as applied to a half-civilized race like the Boers. What 
 are the foreign relations of the Boers ? Do you mean their relations 
 with Portugal ? We do not want them reserved, because Portugal 
 is our ally. What are the foreign relations of the Boers ? I will tell 
 your lordships what they are. The foreign relations of the Boers are 
 with the Zulus, the Swazis, thePondos, and, if there be any other 
 native border tribes ; and the foreign relations of the Boers consist 
 of stealing cattle across the border of the Zulus, and the Zulus steal- 
 ing cattle across the border of the Boers, and Zulus and Boers 
 grazing cattle by trespass on each other's grounds, and the Boers 
 illtreating the Zulus when they come into the Transvaal, and the 
 Zulus illtreating the Boers when they come into Zululand. 
 (Laughter.) These are the relations which are grandiloquently 
 termed the foreign relations of the Boers, and which we have 
 reserved. Are we really going to reserve this treasure ? (Cheers.) 
 Are we really going to reserve squabbles about cattle stealing and 
 grazing over limits, and complaints of illtreatment on one side of 
 the border or the other ? I want to know from the Secretary of 
 State is that his view of the foreign relations which he is so anxious 
 to keep for us ? (Cheers.) But if so, how are we to deal with 
 them ? Suppose that a Boer is illtreated by the Zulus in their 
 country, and the Boers want redress, must they ask our leave before 
 they seek it ? Or suppose the Boers are attacked by the Swazis, 
 are we going to defend the Boers or to forbid them defending them- 
 selves ? Are you going to make military provision for maintaining 
 these foreign relations, or, on the other hand, are you going to say 
 to the Boers that they shall do this, or that, or the other, and yet 
 refuse to defend them for following your advice, which brings them 
 into trouble ? (Cheers.) That brings me to another question. Are 
 we going to be protectors of the Boers or are we not ? Now, I will 
 deal frankly with your lordships on this subjects When I read over 
 this book I did not find in it one word implying that we were to 
 protect the Boer Republic, and I said to myself : "A very foolish 
 thing to reserve the foreign relations of the Boers, but at all events 
 we are not saddled with the duty of protecting this people in their 
 foreign relations." But my illusion was broken by a document, 
 which 1 find, not in this book, but in other channels of information. 
 It is in a communication from Sir Evelyn Wood. It is dated Dur- 
 ban, March 24, and is published in the newspapers : — 
 
 "The Colonial Secretary to-night issued the following communication from 
 Sir Evelyn Wood : — ' Terms of peace have been signed. The Boers have gone 
 away. Free trade intercourse permitted throughout the Transvaal. A Eoyal
 
 17 
 
 •Commission is to assemble at once to consider all points left in abeyance and 
 recommend to the Imperial (TOvernmiMit what, speaking generally, shall be the 
 Eastern boundaries of a self-governing republic, which is to have a British 
 'Resident and to be mider a Britisli protectorate.'" 
 
 Is that an authentic document or not ? The Secretary of State 
 shakes his head. [The Earl of Kimberley. — I do not know.] 
 The noble earl does not know whether the Boer repubhc is to be 
 protected by us or not. [The Earl of Kimberley. — I beg the 
 noble earl's pardon. I did not say that. I said I did not know 
 whether the document quoted is or is not authentic] Then, I 
 suppose, the noble Earl can tell us whether this statement in the 
 document is correct or not. It is issued by Sir Evelyn Wood. It 
 is a very serious thing, and I should be very glad to hear that there 
 is some mistake about it. I have no wish to press the document if 
 it is unauthorized. Bad as other things are here, I shall be glad to 
 hear that there is not to be a protectorate. But the document is issued 
 on the spot. You may not know of it, but it has been issued in 
 the coLintry, and the people of the country will believe it. (Hear, 
 hear.) 
 
 Well, now I come to the next point. The Transvaal will be 
 under the suzerainty of the Queen. I hope your lordships 
 will not suppose that I am going to give a learned o^' antiquarian 
 ^explanation of what the word suzerainty means. I have no intention 
 of doing anything of the kind. I am content to take the word upon 
 the negative and affirmative meanings which we have received from 
 the Government. The negative meaning we have received from 
 the Prime Minister. He says that suzerainty does not mean 
 sovereignty. Well I know very well that it does not (laughter) ; 
 and wiiat is more, if it did the Boers would not have accepted 
 it. (Cheers.) It is just because it does not mean sovereignty 
 that they have submitted to it. (Hear, hear.) What does it mean ? 
 What it means is described by Sir Evelyn Wood, and his glossary 
 ■ — his interpretation — may be found at page 29 of the papers. He 
 defines suzerainty to mean this, " that the country is to have entire 
 self-government as regards its own interior affairs, but that it cannot 
 take action against or with an outside Power without permission 
 of the suzerain." That is to say, the foreign relations of the Boers 
 are reserved. (A laugh.) Now, my objection to that is this. I 
 object to your taking a word and coupling it with the name of the 
 Sovereign of this country, and putting a meaning on the word which 
 is not the real meaning — which is a conventional meaning ; 
 because it is perfectly clear that whatever may be the real meaning 
 of the word, what it does not mean is that foreign relations are re- 
 served. It is quite clear that it does not mean that. [The Earl of 
 .Kimberley. — Why '?] Why ? Will the noble Earl produce any 
 book, any State paper — uny instance in history — in which a Power 
 which had no connection with another Power except through the one 
 ■ circumstance of foreign relations being reserved was called the suze- 
 rain of that other Power '? If this is the meaning of suzerainty,
 
 18 
 
 that wherever the foreign relations are reserved you have a case of 
 suzerainty, the consequence is that the Sovereign of this country is 
 the suzerain of Afghanistan. Because the Sovereign of this country, 
 according to your treaty, has control of the foreign relations of 
 Afghanistan. [The Earl of Kimberley. — What treaty ?] I am 
 M^illing to be corrected, but we have understood that the arrange- 
 ment with Abdurrahman is that the foreign relations are 
 reserved. (Hear, hear,) But that is of very little importance. 
 What I do care about is this. I object to your coining a meaning 
 for a word — a word which has another meaning, I object to your 
 taking possession of a word and giving it a special meaning for a 
 particular purpose, and then connecting it with the Sovereign of 
 this country. Why, you might as well take the word Archimandrite, 
 and say that by that term you mean that Foreign relations are reserved, 
 and then say that the Queen is the Archimandrite of the Transvaal. 
 (Laughter.) You have no right to take a word and give it a mean- 
 ing which is your meaning and not the meaning of the word. And 
 I object to your coining by the prerogative a style for the British 
 Sovereign hitherto unknown. But I will tell you why the word 
 is taken. It is quite palpable what the reason is. The word is 
 selected for this reason. It is selected in order that 3-ou 
 may go on the one hand to the Boers and tell them — and tell them 
 truly — ' ' Suzerain does not moan Sovereign ; suzerainty does not 
 mean sovereignty ; you may be quite satisfied :" and then that you 
 may come home here and jingle in the ears of the unthinking people 
 of the country the word suzerainty, and leave them to think that it 
 has the sound and semblance of, and some connection with, 
 sovereignty. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Now I come to the Commission, and I want to know what is the 
 authority that this Commission is to have and how is it to be sup- 
 ported. I know what has happened with regard to the Boers. The 
 Boers, when the Commission w^as talked of, proposed not unnaturally 
 that they should be represented upon that Commission. They asked 
 that they should have two members, and they would have agreed to 
 be bound by its decision, perhaps, had they been represented. But 
 that was declined. It was decided that there must be no Boers on 
 the Commission at all. I do not iind one word in these papers show- 
 mg that the Boers have consented to be bound by what this Com- 
 mission will do. (Hear, hear.^ I cannot find a word binding even 
 the Triumvirate. We hear from various quarters that there is very 
 gi'eat indignation as to what this Commission is to do, and we hear 
 mutterings both loud and deep that the Boers will not be bound by 
 anything the Commission does. What we may naturally ask is — Sup- 
 pose the Boers refuse to be bound, how are you going to support 
 the authority of the Commission ? What authority have you at this 
 moment in the Transvaal to support it ? You have the same authority 
 that you have in Abyssinia. You may invade Abyssinia and you may 
 invade the Transvaal, but until you invade the Transvaal you have no 
 authority there. (Cheers.) Your garrisons are cooped up and you can-
 
 19 
 
 exercise no authority by compulsion. Suppose you mean to enforce- 
 it by invasion, what is your position with regard to invasion ? Your 
 reinforcements, where are they ? Three or four regiments have been- 
 ordered home. Your General is coming home in the packet ship — 
 that is to say, if he can find room among the numbers who are 
 doubtless hurrying away from a land which you are making unin- 
 habitable for Englishmen. (Cheers.) The spirit of your troops is 
 lowered, the authority of the Crown is discredited ; and what about 
 the loyal Boers ? I do not know how many of them there are. I 
 know that various opinions are entertained on that subject. Some 
 say they are the majority ; a great many people think so. It 
 is quite clear that Mr. Kruger and Mr. Joubert think they are 
 in great numbers, lor thej^ are much afraid of them. (Hear, 
 hear.) Well, but if you had entered the Transvaal in the 
 persent state of aftairs, these loyal Boers would have been your 
 friends and supporters. Will they be so hereafter ? You have betrayed- 
 them once ; do you suppose they will ever let you betray them 
 again ? (Cheers.) They will know much too well for that. Those loyal 
 men will for the future be arrayed against you along with the rest of 
 the nation. That is the way in which you are going to support your 
 Commission. 
 
 But, my lords, I find as regards this Commission a .very remark- 
 able statement, as to which we must have some information from the 
 Secretary of State. It appears, among other things, that the Com- 
 mission is to consider whether there shall not be taken ofi' the Trans- 
 vaal a portion of territory to the east of the 30th parallel of lon- 
 gitude. There is about as much land there, by the look of it, as 
 England and Scotland together. Therefore, the portion in question 
 may be a tolerably large slice. I see that it is said in the papers 
 that the Boers will not consent to have anything taken off the 
 Transvaal ; but I know not how that may be. But for what pur- 
 pose do the Government wish to separate the piece of land to 
 the east of the 30th parallel from the rest of the Transvaal ? The 
 idea appears to be that it is to be some "buft'er," as it is called, 
 between the land of the Boers of the Transvaal and the countries 
 to the east of that territory. I don't suppose that you want a " bufi'er" 
 between the Boers and the Portuguese. Remember that to the 
 cast of the 30th parallel you have first the Portuguese, then 
 Amatonga, and then the Zulus. You want to separate the Boers from 
 the natives of Amatonga and of Zululand, The intervening piece 
 of land I take it for granted you do not mean to leave as " no man's 
 land," without any owner. If you do, either the Boers will take it 
 again, or the Swazis or the Zulus will do so. Are we then to 
 keep that land and to interpose between the Boers, the Swazis, 
 and the Zulus ? We have some right to know what the Govern- 
 ment intend to do. We are not to be hood-winked as to a matter 
 which is all-important in regard to the policy to be pursued in 
 South Africa. You know very well that that intervening piece of 
 land will be of no use to you as an interval between the Trans-
 
 20 
 
 vaal and the native tribes unless you garrison it with British 
 troops. Are you going to garrison it with British troops ? Is 
 that the poHcy of the Government ? Let us know it if it is, because 
 nothing more disastrous could occur to us than that, after giving 
 up the Transvaal and exciting all the loyal natives and the loyal 
 Boers against us we are to end by having a chain of garrisons along 
 the eastern part of the Transvaal, which is most isolated from 
 support. ( Cheers.) 
 
 I come next to the provision that until the completion 
 <of the arrangements with the Boers our garrisons are to 
 remain, are to have food, but are to have no ammunition. (Hear, 
 ^hear.) No ammunition is to be brought by us into the country 
 of the Transvaal. What does this mean ? I own that I am 
 .ashamed to be the person to explain it. Do your lordships 
 remember what has happened ? What were our Transvaal garrisons 
 iit the commencement of the war '? Our soldiers were cooped up in 
 them; they were surrounded; our troops were marching from 
 Natal to relieve them. In substance, though not in form, the garii- 
 rsons were prisoners ; they could not move out. Our troops were 
 marching to relieve them. You are going to leave these garrisons 
 there. What will their position be ? I see calculations made as to 
 whether they have ammunition for a week, for two weeks, or for 
 three. It does not matter in the least whether they have ammu- 
 nition for one week, for two, or for three weeks ; if you have not 
 the right to supply fresh ammunition their ammunition is limited, 
 and they are at the mercy of the Boers around them. (Cheers.) 
 And while you in form leave this country to imagine that you are 
 .doing something in their favour by arranging that these garrisons 
 .are to remain in the Transvaal, the truth and the English of it is 
 -that these garrisons are hostages in the hands of the Boers. (Cheers.) 
 That is where the Government leaves them : those English troops 
 ;are hostages in the hands of the Boers. This reminds us of the 
 painful occurrences at Potchefstroom. There was a time when 
 this country would have expressed a stronger opinion about what 
 has happened at Potchefstroom than it has yet done. What has 
 happened ? There was an armistice agreed upon between Sir E. 
 Wood and the leaders of the Boers. What were the terms of that 
 .armistice? I will read it to joiw lordships. At page 22 it is said 
 that the third term of the armistice is that " Mr. Joubert undertakes 
 .to send notice of the armistice and its conditions to the respective 
 garrisons." (Hear, hear.) Kemember, it was for the Boer com- 
 mander, Mr. Joubert, to do this, and not for us. The armistice 
 was made on the 7th, and the garrison had to surrender 14 days after. 
 (Hear, hear.) I hear that there was a convoy of mules going on from 
 ;SirE.Wood with provisions for this garrison, and that this convoy of 
 mules did not, could not, make the distance of 200 miles in 14 days. 
 Very possibly ; but that has nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Joubert 
 was not to send his notice by a convoy of our mules. He personally 
 .undertook to send notice to the garrison; and does anybody 
 
 i
 
 21 
 
 say that messengers could not traverse in the Transvaal a 
 space of 200 miles in less than 14 days ? I heard with sur- 
 prise the noble Earl say that he and the Secretary of State- 
 for War were conferring on this matter, and that they had not 
 received sufficient information. My lords, I should have thought 
 that 10 minutes, or even 10 seconds, would have been sufficient 
 for any English Minister to know what ought to be done under the 
 circumstances (cheers), and that in 10 seconds after the receipt of 
 the news there would have been flashed from Downing Street, with 
 the lightning speed of the electric wire, a message to the Boer Trium- 
 virate, not that any hfethat had been lost should be restored — that, 
 alas ! could not be done — but that every arm that had been taken 
 must be restored, the ammunition must be given back, full indemnity 
 must be made for every loss, and that every word written with 
 regard to the surrender of Potchefstroom must be absolutely and 
 completely cancelled and obliterated. (Cheers.) And, my lords,. 
 if that has not been done, I do maintain that never before in the 
 history of England has such an act occurred and such an act been 
 allowed to be so long unredressed. (Renewed cheers.) 
 
 And now I come to the stipulation as to Lang's Nek. What is the 
 provision with regard to it? As the Boers, we read, have agreed to 
 withdraw from Lang's Nek and to disperse to their homes. Sir E.Wood 
 promises not to take possession of that position, nor to follow them up 
 with troops, nor to send ammunition into the Transvaal. Lang's Nek 
 is in the colony of Natal. The Transvaal is our country, too, but 
 Lang's Nek is in Natal. The Boers retire from Lang's Nek, and 
 we in Natal are bound hand and foot ; our troops are not to occupy 
 Lang's Nek. My lords, can we speak patiently of this ? (Cheers.) 
 Not to occupy Lang's Nek! What is the explanation of the Prime- 
 Minister about this ? He says these words only mean that the Boers 
 were dispersing and there was not to be a pursuit of the Boers. 
 Well, if that was what was intended, a very few words would have 
 been sufficient — not to occup)- Lang's Nek for 24 hours, or for a 
 day, or for a week. But an absolute provision not to occupy Lang's 
 Nek ! My lords, was ever such an insult offered as this, even 
 according to the explanation of the Prime Minister ? (Cheers.) I 
 can hardly trust myself to state it. Are we, are this great and 
 spirited nation, gentlemen and men of honour I trust, making peace 
 with the Boers, telling them that we do make peace with them, 
 that they are to disperse (as one of its terms) to their own homes, 
 and are they to turn round and tell us, " That is all very well for 
 you, but we don't trust you ; we believe that at the moment of our 
 dispersing, notwithstanding the peace, you would turn round and 
 follow us and pursue us, and we therefore bind you not merely to 
 make peace with us, but not to occupy positions in your own 
 country from which you could pursue us ?" Was ever such an 
 insult offered in private life, and is our nation so lost to all sense 
 of honour that it can sit down under such an insult as that which 
 the Prime Minister offers by way of explanation ? (Cheers. )
 
 22 
 
 I come now to the next point. There is to be a Resident 
 
 :at the capital of the Boers, but there is to be no in- 
 terference in the internal affairs of the country. Now, how is 
 the Resident to be supported — I do not mean by money, but by 
 force ? The Boers are a rough sort of people, and even in our 
 short intercourse with them during the last two months some 
 rough things have been done. I do not suppose that this 
 Resident will be very popular, and I wish to know, without 
 anticipating the use of any extreme violence, how he is to be 
 supported in the event of his being insulted. Or are you going 
 to send him into the country without any support ? If so, I 
 need only remind the members of Her Majesty's Crovernment 
 that that was precisely what they denounced when it was done 
 in Afghanistan. I trust we shall have an explanation on this point. 
 (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Then I come to the amnesty, the terms of which are very remark- 
 able. The amnesty extends to all, including the leaders, and 
 excepts only persons directly responsible for acts contrary to the 
 rules of civilized warfare. And in Sir E. Wood's final agreement we 
 find that the Boer leaders said they would gladly co-operate with 
 Her Majesty's Government in bringing to justice those who were 
 directly responsible for acts contrary to the rules of civilized war- 
 fare. Now, who are these men? We know very well to whom these 
 words ought to apply — namely, to the murderers of Captain Eliot, and 
 to the authors of the massacre at Madder's Spruit. The Boers are 
 to co-operate with us in bringing them to ,]ustice ; but what does this 
 mean? The murderers of Capt. Eliot are Boers in the Transvaal : they 
 are nine in number, and are perfectly well known to everyone there. 
 The murder was committed in broad daylight, and in the midst 
 of the homesteads, so that every one knew what had happened. The 
 leaders of the Boers are able to hand them over to us, and to tell 
 us that they will co-operate with us is to invert the real position 
 of affairs, for they are in possession of the Transvaal, and we can 
 do nothing. It is for us to require them to hand over to us those 
 persons who are outside the pale of civilized warfare, instead of 
 promising to co-operate with us. (Hear, hear.) But who are 
 the others ? You remember the affair of Madder's Spruit, and 
 the account of it that has been communicated to us by the 
 Government. The circumstances of the attack I will read to 
 your lordships from the Official Report of Sir Owen Lanyon. He 
 says : — 
 
 " The circumstances of the attack upon Colonel Ansl i-utlier's men— a force 
 .consisting of 268 men, women, and children — are told in a few words. Having 
 selected their spot for the attack, the inomited force of the rebels surrounded 
 the straggling wagon-train while on the line of march, and sent in a flag of 
 truce to the officer commanding, and while he was reading the letter from the 
 Triumvirate, and replying verbally that his instructions were to proceed to 
 Pretoria, and that he must obey those instructions, the attacking force of rebels 
 was, under cover of the flag of truce, advancing upon and sui-rounding the 
 soldiers ; and immediately the answer was given the rebels opened a deadly
 
 23 
 
 •fire, picked off the officers, and killed and wounded 157 of the small English 
 •force. The number of the dead now amounts to 70." 
 
 And lurther on he adds : 
 
 " The surrounding and gradual hemming in under a (lag of truce of a force 
 and the selection of spots from which to direct their lire, as in the case of the 
 unprovoked attack by the rebels upon Colonel Anstruther's force, is a proceed- 
 ing of which very few like incidents can be mentioned in the annals of 
 civilized warfare." 
 
 My lords, did I hear aright the othei night a reply given that the 
 Government had received no information to lead them to think that 
 this massacre was not inside the rules of civilized warfare ? Did your 
 'lordships hear that in this House ? I trust there is some mistake, and 
 that the noble Earl will rise and tell us that that is not what he 
 meant to convey, and that the idea will not go forth that a transaction 
 such as I have described is, according to the view of an English 
 Government, within the pale of civilized warfare. (Cheers.) 
 
 And now as to the position of the Enghsh and the loyal Boers. I see in 
 this paper some suggestion that somebody or other is to look after their 
 interests. These loyal Boers number many thousands, of whom many 
 are refugees in neighbouring countries, but many still remain in the 
 Transvaal. I do not know whether it is true, as we read the other 
 day, that Mr. Kruger said he would rather kill 20 of them than one 
 English soldier; but if there is any truth in these words, they show 
 the temper in which the loyal Boers will be regarded by those who 
 are now in the ascendant. And what have they to rely upon ? 
 I remember that Sir Garnet Wolseley told them (I trust to my me- 
 mory for the words) that the rivers might run back to their sources, 
 or the sun rise in the West, before the Transvaal ceased to form 
 part of the British dominion. (Hear, hear.) They relied on that 
 assurance ; but was the word of Sir G. Wolseley of less avail than 
 that of Sir Evelyn Wood ? And, if Sir E. Wood's word is now to 
 be relied on, was Sir G. Wolseley's word not to be taken before ? 
 Can you suppose that anything that this Commission can recom- 
 mend, any promise that can be extracted, will prevent these Boers, 
 when they return home, from regretting bitterly the day that they 
 believed the word of an English general ? (Cheers.) 
 
 I cannot weary your lordships by going into a further examina- 
 tion of the details of this arrangement, though there is still much 
 that might be said. I have risen, my lords, from the 
 perusal of these papers with feelings which I find it diffi- 
 • cult to describe.' It is not easy, in the midst of the events which 
 pass around us, to realize the character of the history we are creating 
 for future ages ; but we can understand and look back upon the 
 history of past t:mes, and infer fromthis the manner in which we shall 
 be regarded by those who come after us. It is just 200 years since 
 a page was written in the annals of England, darkened by the sur- 
 renders of Burgoyne and Cornwallis. Those were surrenders made by 
 generals at a distance from, and without communication with, home — 
 .on then own responsibility — in great emergency — and without the
 
 24 
 
 possibility of any alternative. They were events, however, which; 
 both at the time and long afterwards deeply touched our national 
 pride. But it will be recorded hereafter that it v/as reserved for the 
 19th century, and for the days of telegrams, to find a surrender, 
 with reinforcements at hand, and every means for restoring the power 
 and vindicating the authority of the Crown, dictated, word for word, 
 by the Government at home. I observe that this arrangement is- 
 somewhere styled the Peace of Mount Prospect ; My lords, I much 
 doubt whether it will not go down to posterity as the Capitulation of 
 Downing Street. (Cheers.) You have administered a bitter cup to- 
 Englishmen abroad and Englishmen at home. And j^ou have made 
 the draught unduly and unnecessarily bitter. Surely some of the 
 ingredients might have been spared. I wish you could have chosen 
 for the conclusion of such a capitulation some other agent than one 
 of the bravest, the most intrepid, the most promising generals in the 
 service of the Queen. (Cheers.) I wish you could have spared our 
 troops the intense mortification of being paraded in order to see a 
 half civilized enemy marching off in triumph wdth arms and accoutre- 
 ments captured from British soldiers. (Cheers.) I wish that while 
 still the Transvaal remains, as you say it does, under our control, 
 the British Hag had not been first reversed and then trailed in insult 
 through the mud. (Cheers.) I wish that the moment when you are 
 weakening our Empire in the East had not been selected for dis- 
 membering our Empire in South Africa. (Cheers.) These are the 
 aggravations of the transaction. You have used no pains to conceal 
 what was humbling, and a shame that was real, you have also made 
 burning. (Cheers.) But the transaction, without the aggravations, 
 is bad enough. It has already touched, and will every day touch 
 more deeply the heart of the nation. Other reverses we have had : 
 other disasters. But a reverse is not dishonour, and disaster does 
 not necessarily imply disgrace. To Her Majesty's Government we 
 owe a sensation which to this country of ours is new, and which 
 certainly is not agreeable. 
 
 " In all the ills we ever bore 
 We grieved, we sighed, we wept ; we never blushed before.'* 
 
 (Loud cheers.)