o '■ : - r .\ i
1899.] Mr. A. Elliot and Sir W. Har&H&f.- ^ {207
entirely acquitted the Government as a whole, the Colonial Secretary and the High Commissioner at the Cape, Sir A. Milner, in conjunction with Mr. Bhodes and his associates, had for the last two years made up their minds that war and war only should be the termination of the crisis, and that they had worked to that end for the last twelve or fourteen months.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. S. T. Evans (Glamorgan, Mid.), and strongly opposed by Mr. Wanklyn {Bradford, Central), who indignantly denied that the South African League, as had been alleged, was subsidised by capitalists. A moderate inde- pendent criticism of the Ministerial policy was offered by Mr. Arthur Elliot, the Liberal Unionist member for Durham City, and editor of the Edinburgh Review, who, having acknowledged that we were at war because of the insolent Boer ultimatum, said that was not the whole case. Sir A. Milner's line at the Bloemfontein Conference was a wise one, and no alternative had. been suggested. The state of things in the Transvaal, they must all agree, could not be indefinitely prolonged ; but while Sir A. Milner was advancing his policy at the conference there was another policy being advanced — the policy of the South African League, which demanded the demolition of the Boer forts. It was the league and the extreme Outlanders who were, in his opinion, mainly responsible for the war, and for the non-acceptance of the line taken by Sir A. Milner. He deplored the fact that, when the subjection of the Transvaal was advocated by the South African League, it was not more thoroughly repudiated by the Government. And he regarded it as a distressing circumstance that only a few weeks or days ago there should have been an appearance of almost entire agreement between the two parties, and that now negotiation had given place to war. The Boer Government was a bad one, no doubt, and unfit to handle a go-ahead community ; but, with the gradual growth of the British colonies and the wealth and energy of this empire, there could have been no reason to fear the influence of the two small republics in South Africa. Now, however, that war had been entered upon, he, for one, whilst believing that our troops already in South Africa were sufficient to overpower the Boers, should be prepared to double any demand the Government might make on the resources of the country for men or money.
Sir Wm. Harcourt (Monmouthshire, W.) followed in an elabo- rate speech. At the outset he fully acknowledged that it was the duty of the House to "support the Executive Govern- ment in maintaining the integrity of the dominions of the Queen." After justifying by precedent his action in criticis- ing during a war the policy which led up to it, Sir Wm. Harcourt denied that the Transvaal Government was open to the charge of " criminal obstinacy " made against it in a recent speech by Mr. Balfour. In this connection he referred to the successive concessions with regard to the franchise made by
