came in another Power, not a great Power, but a small Power, a brave Power, a free Power, which dared something for the emancipation of its oppressed compatriots.

"Now it is Greece that is to be coerced. The British fleet, of which we were all so justly proud, is to be an instrument in the coercion of Greece. The case of Armenia was sad enough, but then, at least, we were only the passive and reluctant accomplices in the fate of that unhappy race, but here we are to be the active agents of a policy which is not ours. In the name of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire we are bidden to crush the champions of an oppressed people. Is it not time that we should take our stand?"

The Liberal delegates enthusiastically endorsed their leader's words and sentiments, but it is more than doubtful if they considered them available for electioneering purposes among voters who were, as a rule, as indifferent to and ignorant of Armenians as they were of Cretans. The pluck of Greece standing single-handed against a coalition of the great Powers at first sight seemed heroic; but, as the truth of the campaign became known, the sympathy evoked gradually changed into a feeling of contempt that a nation should, under such conditions as her armies showed, have run the risk of plunging Eastern Europe, and possibly the whole of the Continent, into war. M. Delyannis may have hoped to have played the part of Cavour in the regeneration of his country, but he had studied with singularly little result the example of the great Italian statesman.

The Norwich speeches, however, furnished Lord Salisbury with a text for a vigorous defence of his policy in Crete. In the House of Lords, without previous notice, the Prime Minister (March 19) called attention to the speech made two days before by the Earl of Kimberley at a meeting in Norwich, in which his reference to M. Hanotaux' speech had been misrepresented. Lord Salisbury on that occasion was asked to state, not the policy of her Majesty's Government, but the determination come to by the Powers as to their action in Crete, and in reply to that question he stated that the only new fact was that Crete was to be blockaded, and that Lord Kimberley would find an admirable statement of the policy of the Powers in the speeches of certain French ministers. Lord Salisbury proceeded to make a graver and more serious complaint, that in his Norwich speech Lord Kimberley had repudiated the policy which all parties in this country had previously adhered to, that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire should be maintained. Lord Kimberley was himself a member of the Government by which the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was made part of the law of Europe, but he had never before given any ground for the belief that he repudiated the policy which the chief he served and the Government to which he belonged solemnly adopted, and to which they put the name of England in 1856. No doubt the Sultan had behaved very badly during the last

F

two years, but if the policy solemnly adopted by this country in the face of Europe was to be given up solely on that account it was either very lightly adopted or very lightly abandoned. In any event Lord Salisbury felt bound to separate himself as strongly as possible from that declaration. Whatever modification of the integrity of Turkey might be brought about must be done by the concert of all the Powers. The Powers had been defied by a State which owed its very existence to the concert of Europe, for if it had not been for that concert the present Hellenic kingdom would never have been heard of, and that defiance had been given with circumstances of the greatest aggravation. In point of international law Greece had not a shred of right to Crete, and the Powers were defending international law, for they believed that if it were not respected the peace of the world would only be worth a very few years' purchase. The federated action of Europe was the sole hope of escaping from the constant terror and calamity of war, but that action could only be preserved by a respect for the engagements entered into under it. He admitted, however, that the maintenance of that federation of Europe would be increasingly difficult if every statesman who had retired from public life thought it right to "fling insults" at the Sovereigns who occupied the principal thrones of Christian Europe. The Earl of Kimberley, of course, had to defend himself against so severe and carefully weighed an attack, and he denied that he had intentionally misrepresented the Prime Minister on the personal point, and maintained that the information he had tried to elicit, though nominally as to the determination of the Powers, was really as to what was the policy of this country. When referred to the speeches of M. Hanotaux and M. Méline, he confessed that he would have preferred to have a statement of British policy from a British minister; but he looked at the speeches of the French statesmen and found in them the declaration that French policy rested upon preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. He admitted that the statement he made on that at Norwich was a very grave one, but it was made after full consideration and with a full sense of responsibility, and it was to the effect that the Liberal party meant for the future to dissociate themselves, plainly and distinctly, from the policy on which, no doubt, their course had been based in the past. He admitted that, as a subordinate member of the then Government, he shared the responsibility for the policy laid down in 1856; but he contended that that policy had failed, and that the doctrine of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire had been put aside and repeatedly violated and disregarded and treated as a mere fiction by every European Power. He urged that the country was entitled to change its policy if circumstances required it, and he quoted Lord Salisbury himself as having said that in assenting to that policy we "put our money on the wrong horse." By the Treaty of Berlin several provinces were

separated from the Ottoman Empire. It by no means followed that Turkey was to be forthwith torn to pieces, but it could hardly be contested that the Turkish Empire was a standing danger to the peace of Europe. In these circumstances he thought it for the interests of this country and for the interests of European peace that we should be disconnected for ever from regarding the integrity of the Turkish Empire as the basis of British foreign policy.

The South African Committee having been duly appointed after some debate, as already described, lost no time in commencing to take evidence. A court was assigned to the committee leading out of Westminster Hall, to which reporters and members of both Houses were admitted, and such few of the public as could obtain tickets. Some of the persons more prominently interested were represented by counsel, but as a rule the examination of the witnesses was conducted by the members of the committee, the Liberals generally-but Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Blake especially-taking the line that Mr. Rhodes primarily, and the Chartered Company acting under his advice, had contrived the "revolution in Johannesburg, to advance their material interests. At the opening of the proceedings it was announced that the inquiry would be divided in two parts-the first as to the circumstances leading to the Jameson raid, and the second as to the administration of the Chartered Company. At the first meeting (Feb. 16) Mr. Rhodes was the first witness called, and by permission read a formal statement of the circumstances leading up to the raid. Mr. Rhodes dealt with the Uitlanders' grievances and the corrupt administration of the Boers; and as one largely interested in the Transvaal he felt that the unfriendly attitude of the Boer Government was the great obstacle to common action among the various States of South Africa. "Under these circumstances I assisted the movement in Johannesburg with my purse and influence. Further, acting within my rights, in the autumn of 1895 I placed a body of troops under Dr. Jameson, prepared to act in the Transvaal in certain eventuali

Subsequently Mr. Rhodes declared: "With reference to the Jameson raid, I may state that Dr. Jameson went in without my authority." His statement concluded by declaring that in all his actions he was greatly influenced by his belief that the policy of the Boer Government was to "introduce the influence of another foreign Power into the already complicated system of South Africa."

After Sir William Harcourt-who conducted the examination with great fairness-had dealt with certain financial details, Mr. Rhodes was asked as to the way in which arms were smuggled into the Transvaal through the agency of the De Beers Company, and as to his connection therewith: "Then you never gave any authority to any one in the De Beers Company to carry out instructions to smuggle arms into the Trans

vaal?""I decline to answer that. I knew these guns were being sent in." Pressed as to who authorised a certain Captain Holden to go into the De Beers premises and carry out transactions connected with the smuggling of arms, Mr. Rhodes replied: "That is a question I prefer not to answer." Finally, Mr. Rhodes declared that he did not authorise Captain Holden, and that the guns were "sent through the De Beers Company (of which Mr. Rhodes was life governor), "but not by any authority of the company," but by an officer of the company who had been punished. When examined as to his statement that he had a right to put men on the border of the Transvaal, Mr. Rhodes was asked why he had not informed Sir Hercules Robinson that he was so doing. "You want an answer? Well, I should think you would get that answer from the High Commissioner." On it being pointed out that the High Commissioner had stated that Mr. Rhodes had told him that the concentration of troops was to protect the railway, Mr. Rhodes declared that he did not like to say anything unfair to the High Commissioner. He made the statement, and Mr. Rhodes accepted it. It did not affect the question.

Mr. Rhodes was closely pressed in regard to the "women and children" letter of invitation to Dr. Jameson written in Johannesburg on November 20, and telegraphed from the Cape to the Times on the day after the raid with the date altered to December 28, which made it look as if the raid were a direct response to the invitation. Generally, his assertion was that the letter was not cabled home to the Times to give the idea that that was the reason why Dr. Jameson went in. "It was rather to show that he had had communication with those people and that he had been asked to help." In contrast with this statement Sir William Harcourt drew Mr. Rhodes' attention to his reply to a telegram sent by the Chartered Company directors directly they knew of the raid, which reply pointed out that "Dr. Jameson had strongly worded letter from leading inhabifants of Johannesburg asking for assistance," and stating "that large numbers of women and children would be unprotected." Mr. Rhodes, however, did not seem to consider that he had represented the letter as the reason for Dr. Jameson's action. When it was also pointed out to Mr. Rhodes that he knew when the invitation was cabled home to England that the writers had withdrawn it, he repeated that it was only cabled to show that there had been communications, and "that at a certain time Jameson would have gone in if necessary." The question that followed inevitably was: 'Would it not have been more fair to have stated that that was in the month of November, and not December, when the Johannesburg people were deprecating going in?" To this Mr. Rhodes replied: "It did not strike me at the time." The incident closed with a question asking Mr. Rhodes if he was aware that Dr. Jameson

66

used the letter of invitation as his excuse when he replied to the High Commissioner's message ordering him to stop. The question was not answered.

Another incident arose when Mr. Rhodes was asked who was the "chairman" referred to in Colonel Rhodes' telegram to Mr. Rhodes sent on December 21, stating that assurances had been given that Mr. Rhodes and "chairman" would leave directly the revolution took place. At first no answer was given, but when Sir W. Harcourt directly asked whether it was Sir Hercules Robinson who was referred to, Mr. Rhodes replied that he would prefer to think over the matter, and give his answer another day. Mr. Rhodes added that he "did not even know that the telegram was here." He had not read the Cape blue-book through closely. "Sir William Harcourt might think that I wished to evade the answer, but really I did not." Before the committee rose Mr. Rhodes was asked, apropos of a telegram sent from the Cape to Dr. Jameson saying that the revolution would take place on Saturday, and adding, "They are very anxious you must not start before 8 o'clock, and secure telegraph's silence," whether that was not an order to Dr. Jameson to start on Saturday at 8 o'clock. Mr. Rhodes emphatically denied this inference, pointed out that Dr. Harris, not he, sent the telegram, and stated that the general effect of the telegrams during the last week was to stop Dr. Jameson. Asked what was the meaning of securing the silence of the telegraph office, Mr. Rhodes replied: "I do not know what it means. It seems absurd, does it not?" Sir William Harcourt: "It is not absurd, because it was the thing that was done. The reason you were not able to communicate on December 29 with Dr. Jameson was that the silence of the telegraph office had been secured."

In the interval which elapsed between the sittings of the committee our relations with the Transvaal had been casually mentioned in Parliament. In reply to a question, the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, in a dry tone, read out the terms of the claim made by the Transvaal Government on account of the Jameson raid. They claimed in the first instance 677,9381. 3s. 3d. for material damage, and a further sum of 1,000,000l., or the sum necessary to make up the first claim to a million-he was not certain which-for moral and intellectual damage. In addition to these claims, the Transvaal Government gave warning that they did not include in this demand legitimate claims which might be made by injured persons. The House of Commons received the announcement with loud laughter, and no question as to how the demands of the Transvaal Government would be met arose throughout the session.

The following were the details of the claim made by the Transvaal Government for damages on account of the raid :