ll appearance of being an English irruption.[85]

To the visitor who saw and heard what I have been describing--and no
Englishman could pass through without seeing and hearing it--two
questions naturally presented themselves. One related to the merits of
the case. This was a question which only a visitor considered, for the
inhabitants were drawn by race or interest to one side or the other. It
raised a point often debated by moralists: What are the circumstances
which justify insurrection? Some cases are too clear for argument.
Obviously any subject of a bloodthirsty tyrant ruling without or against
law is justified in taking up arms. No one doubts that the Christian
subjects of the Sultan ought to rebel if they had a prospect of success;
and those who try to make them rebel are blamed only because the
prospect of success is wanting. On the other hand, it is clear that
subjects of a constitutional Government, conducted in accordance with
law, do wrong and must be punished, if they take arms, even when they
have grievances to redress. Here, however, was a case which seemed to
lie between the extreme instances. The Uitlanders, it need hardly be
said, did not concern themselves with nice distinctions. In the interior
of South Africa Governments and Constitutions were still in a
rudimentary stage; nor had the habit of obeying them been fully formed.
So many non-legal things had been done in a high-handed way, and so many
raids into native territories had been made by the Boers themselves,
that the sort of respect for legality which Europeans feel was still
imperfectly developed in all sections of the population. Those of the
Reformers, however, who sought to justify their plans, argued that the
Boer Government was an oligarchy which overtaxed its subjects, and yet
refused them those benefits which a civilised Government is bound to
give. It was the Government of a small and ignorant minority, and, since
they believed it to be corrupt as well as incompetent, it inspired no
respect. Peaceful agitation had proved useless. Did not the sacred
principle of no taxation without representation, which had been held to
justify the American Revolution, justify those who had been patient so
long in trying to remove their grievances by force, of course with as
little effusion of blood as possible?

On the other hand, there was much to be said for the Boers, not only
from the legal, but from the sentimental, side of the case. They had
f