ect I submit that it does, and I will
quote the words on which I and also my colleagues base the opinion
that it does unequivocally pledge the Government to the
non-relinquishment of the Transvaal.

The actual words of your letter are:

'Looking at all the circumstances, both of the Transvaal and the rest
of South Africa, and to the necessity of preventing a renewal of the
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 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.'

But your letter of the 8th of June not only contained this final and
absolute announcement of the policy of England, but it gave the
reasons for arriving at it in words which so aptly express the case
of the loyalists that I quote them _in extenso_. They are as follows:

'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 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_.'

In your speech in the House of Commons, on the debate on Mr. Peter
Rylands' motion condemning the annexation of the country and the
enforcement of British supremacy in it, which was defeated by a
majority of ninety-six, on the 21st of January in the current year,
you used words of similar import. You are reported in the _Times_ of
the 22nd of January as saying:

'To disapprove the annexation of a country is one thing; to abandon
that annexation is another. Whatever we do, we must not blind
ourselves to the legitimate consequences of facts. By the annexation
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 obligation which
that