ary adviser of the High Commissioner,
was in close political sympathy with Mr. Merriman and Mr. Sauer, and
in complete agreement with their views. For General Butler held that a
war to compel the Boer oligarchy to grant the elementary political
rights to the British in the Transvaal, which even Mr. Gladstone's
Cabinet intended to secure for them, would be the "greatest calamity
that ever occurred in South Africa." And more than this, that if the
Home Government did make war, it would be merely playing the game of
"the party of the Raid, the South African League."[74]

[Footnote 74: Evidence before War Commission. Cd. 1,791.]

[Sidenote: Milner and Butler.]

It is generally supposed that Lord Milner's disagreement with General
Butler had its origin in the conduct of the latter, when Acting High
Commissioner, in refusing the first Uitlander petition. This is quite
untrue. Lord Milner's view of the Uitlander grievances was, of course,
different from that of General Butler, who treated the appeal to the
Queen as an unnecessary and artificial agitation against the Transvaal
Government, and thereby placed the Acting British Agent, Mr. Edmund
Fraser, in a position of extreme difficulty; since Mr. Fraser was, of
course, desirous of carrying out his duties upon the general lines
followed by Sir William Greene in accordance with the instructions of
the Home Government. But the Transvaal question had never been
discussed between Lord Milner and General Butler; and at the time of
the Edgar incident Lord Milner was in England, and he had no means,
therefore, of forming an opinion as to the significance which attached
to this event, or the agitation to which it gave rise. On this
particular point there was no opportunity for a conflict of opinion.
Had Lord Milner been in South Africa he would, no doubt, have accepted
the first petition to the Queen; but he made no complaint of General
Butler's refusal to receive it. For the moment it was General Butler's
business, as Acting High Commissioner, and not Lord Milner's. From a
wider point of view, General Butler's action was injurious. It was one
of the many instances in which their English sympathisers have led the
Boers to destruction. But there was no friction, or argument, or
unfriendliness between him and the High Commissioner on this account.
This arose at a much later period; and arose, not on the general
question of policy, but on the question of the necessity of milita