FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194  
195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   >>   >|  
"annexed the Transvaal." The present baronet, the late High Commissioner's son, called him to account at once; but it required three successive letters[152] to wring from Mr. John Morley a specific acknowledgement of his error. The evidence which establishes the fact that Frere did not annex the Transvaal is the following statement, bearing his signature and published in February, 1881:[153] [Footnote 152: Published in _The Times_, September 30th, 1899.] [Footnote 153: In _The Nineteenth Century_ for that month.] "It was an act which in no way originated with me, over which I had no control, and with which I was only subsequently incidentally connected.... It was a great question then, as now, whether the annexation was justifiable." This was on the 5th. On the 27th a letter was published in _The Times_ in which Sir William Harcourt wrote, in respect of the suzerainty question: "All further argument is now superfluous, as the matter is decisively disposed of by the publication at Pretoria of Lord Derby's telegram of February 27th, 1884, in which the effect of the London Convention of that date was stated in the following words: 'There will be the same complete independence in the Transvaal as in the Orange Free State.'" In a letter written on the day following, and published in _The Times_ of October 2nd, the writer of the present work pointed out, among other inaccuracies, that the words actually telegraphed by Lord Derby were: "same complete internal independence in the Transvaal as in Orange Free State." That is to say, before the word "independence" the word "internal"--vitally important to the present issue--was inserted in the original, and omitted in the Boer version, from which Sir William Harcourt had quoted without referring to the Blue-book, Cd. 4,036. [Sidenote: Its injurious effect.] The third instance occurred some three months later. Mr. James Bryce, speaking on December 14th, 1899, stated that Sir Bartle Frere "sent to govern the Transvaal Sir Owen Lanyon, an officer unfitted by training and character for so delicate and difficult a task."[154] The following passage, which the present writer subsequently published, affords precise and overwhelming evidence of the absolute untruth of Mr. Bryce's assertion. It appears in a letter written by Sir Bartle Frere on December 13th, 1878, to Mr. (now Sir) Gordon Sprigg,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194  
195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Transvaal

 

published

 

present

 

letter

 

independence

 

internal

 
William
 
Footnote
 

Harcourt

 

December


February

 

Bartle

 

Orange

 

question

 

stated

 

writer

 

effect

 

subsequently

 

evidence

 
written

complete

 

inserted

 

original

 

omitted

 

version

 

pointed

 

October

 

inaccuracies

 
vitally
 

important


telegraphed

 

quoted

 

instance

 

difficult

 

passage

 
delicate
 

officer

 

unfitted

 

training

 

character


affords

 
precise
 

Gordon

 

Sprigg

 

appears

 

assertion

 
overwhelming
 

absolute

 

untruth

 
Lanyon