1899.] Mr. Morlcy and Mr. Courtney. [213
the British Government ; and sooner or later the avoiding of rebellion would have been morally impossible. A perusal of the proceedings at the Bloemfontein Conference convinced him that President Kruger never really intended to come to a settlement.
Alter speeches from Mr. C. P. Scott (Leigh) and Dr. Clark (Caithness) in support of the amendment, and Mr. Scott-Montagu (New Forest) for the Government, Mr. Morley (Montrose District) taunted the Government with having tried to impose upon the Transvaal Republic terms which they would not dare to impose upon any self-governing colony. It was, he said, Mr. Chamber- lain's speech on August 26 (at the garden party) which first drew him on to a platform on this subject. Now he was more mystified than ever, for it appeared that the reforms referred to in that speech as being squeezed out of a sponge were so satis- factory that two or three days later Mr. Chamberlain wrote a despatch accepting them. He deplored the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, the paltry differences which had pre- vented a settlement between this country and the Transvaal.
Mr. Morley was followed by Mr. Courtney (Bodmin), who, while admitting that there was much in the government of the Transvaal to justify remonstrance, protested against the practice of exaggerating the abuses that existed. War and conquest were not likely to efface racial distinction. They had had a most extraordinary and unexpected revelation in respect of the Boers' August proposal. When it was published it was received in this country almost as an insult. Yet the Colonial Secretary told them that, so far from resenting it, he sent out a reply which he had intended should be received as an acceptance. At the time he was viewing the Boer proposal in that light, he was making the extraordinary speech they all remembered at a garden party. The reply was not received by the Boers as an assent, and yet the right hon. gentleman did nothing to correct the misunderstanding. What a misery it was that two nations should be going to war, ... <4 all through diplomacy that could not express what it meant, and which, when it was misunder- stood, could not explain that it had been misunderstood ! " He deplored the ultimatum of President Kruger as an instance of as bad diplomacy on the one side as there had been on the other ; but how could they expect the two republics to stand until they had come up with all their forces, and then communicated their demands under conditions that required instant fulfilment ? He lamented the diplomacy which had involved us in a war of the most threatening character, which would probably be prolonged and bloody, and would certainly be inglorious.
In replying briefly on the debate Mr. Arthur Balfour (Man- chester, E.) derided Mr. Courtney's attempt to minimise the grievances of the Outlanders. After slight and general com- ments upon the speeches of Mr. Morley and Sir E. Clarke, the Leader of the House proceeded to point out that after all there were only three hypotheses before them . One was that of crimin-
