Chesterfield speech. Between himself and his Majesty's Government there was, he said, a "cardinal difference," his desire being for a peace based on the assent of the Boers rather than on their subjugation, on which he regarded the King's Ministers as insisting. While for months he and his friends had done their best to urge the adoption of the more reasonable alternative, they had lately been reinforced from a quarter, perhaps the most influential from which support could have come. He referred of course to the recent important speech of Lord Rosebery. He had always regretted Lord Rosebery's withdrawal from public life, and had, on several occasions, publicly and privately, urged him to renew co-operation with his old friends, among whom he would be cordially welcomed. The Chesterfield speech appeared to indicate a willingness in the speaker to rejoin his old party, and he (Sir Henry) had thought it right to renew to Lord Rosebery the expression of the feeling entertained by those who had formerly acted with him; and though Lord Rosebery seemed to desire to retain his independent position, it was still to be hoped that the Liberal party would receive his powerful help on the most urgent of all questions-the reestablishment of peace, as to which he saw no vital difference between Lord Rosebery's views and his own. They agreed that the war should be vigorously prosecuted, and also that overtures from any responsible quarter should receive a hearing; they agreed in regretting the tone of Lord Milner's speech at Durban, when he said that the war might never formally be at an end; in denouncing the proclamation which fixed the end of hostilities at September 15, 1901, and consigned to banishment any leaders found in arms after that date; in recommending a prompt and liberal amnesty. They differed on the question of opening negotiations with the Boers, but the difference was little more than one of etiquette and punctilio-it was whether we should say to them, "Come and negotiate these are our main terms," or "Why do you not offer to come and negotiate and see how nice our terms will be?" They differed too on the question of the concentration camps and the severities which had accompanied some parts of the military operations. Lord Rosebery said that war was always cruel; but he could hardly regard with complacency some phases of this long campaign. In any case the Government had practically admitted the force of the condemnation passed on their measures. As to the question of martial law, he did not believe that there was such a cleavage between himself and Lord Rosebery as had been asserted. Lord Rosebery was against the recall of Lord Milner, yet he had intimated that Lord Kitchener might well conclude a peace with the Boers-in other words, that Lord Milner could be set aside in the negotiations.

Lord Spencer, who followed Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, took occasion to say that, during Lord Kimberley's much-regretted illness, he had accepted the temporary leadership of the

Opposition in the Upper House, " with the friendly concurrence of Lord Rosebery and other Liberal peers."

In speeches made respectively at Birmingham (Jan. 6) and Manchester (Jan. 10) Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour had indulged in some half-ironic, half-sympathetic allusions to the possibilities of the effective and permanent conversion of the Liberal Imperialists to Unionist principles; but serious Ministerial discussion of the Chesterfield speech in its bearing on the chances of peace in South Africa was reserved for the debate on the Address. On January 11, however, the Colonial Secretary delivered, also at Birmingham, an answer, for which everybody was waiting, to some remarkable criticisms passed by the Imperial Chancellor of Germany in the Reichstag on his speech at Edinburgh of October 25, 1901. It will be convenient to quote the passage to which, very possibly in a misreported shape, so much exception was taken in Germany [see ANNUAL REGISTER for 1901, pp. 211, 216 and 286]. Referring to the question raised at home in some quarters friendly to the Government, of the possible necessity of a resort to sterner measures for the suppression of the guerilla warfare so persistently carried on by the Boers, Mr. Chamberlain said: "I think that the time has come-is coming-when measures of greater severity may be necessary, and if that time comes we can find precedents for anything we may do in the action of those nations who now criticise our 'barbarity' and 'cruelty,' but whose example in Poland, in the Caucasus, in Algeria, in Tongking, in Bosnia, in the Franco-German war-whose example we have never even approached." When the Reichstag reassembled (Jan. 8) Count von Stolberg-Wernigerode, one of its Vice-Presidents, having called attention to the indignation which the passage in question had aroused in Germany, Count von Bülow replied in the following terms: "I think that we shall all agree, and I think that all sensible people in England will agree with us, that when a Minister finds himself constrained to justify his policy-a thing which may happen-he does well to let foreign countries alone. But if, nevertheless, he wishes to adduce foreign examples, it is expedient that he should do so with the greatest circumspection, else there is a danger, not only of his being misunderstood, but also and without any such intention as I will assume in the present instance and as I must assume in accordance with the assurances given me from the other side-there is a danger of hurting foreign feelings. This is the more to be regretted when it happens to a Minister in dealing with a country which, as Count Stolberg has just pointed out, has always maintained good and friendly relations with his own-relations the undisturbed continuance of which is equally in accordance with the interests of both parties. It was altogether intelligible that in a nation which is so closely bound up with its glorious army as is the German people the general feeling rose up against the attempt, and even against

the appearance of an attempt, to misrepresent the heroic character and the moral basis of our struggles for national unity. The German army, however, stands far too high and its escutcheon is far too clean that it should be affected by distorted judgments. With regard to anything of that kind, the remark of Frederick the Great holds good when he said, on being told that some one had attacked him and the Prussian army, 'Let the man alone and don't excite yourselves, he is biting at granite."

Laughter and cries of "Very good" greeted this very singular utterance on the part of the German Chancellor. In the German Press also it was generally applauded, and the view appeared to be held there for a day or two that Mr. Chamberlain had received a rebuke which he and the English people, so far as he represented them, must accept with the best grace which they could muster. It need hardly be said that in this country Count von Bülow's language excited widespread and profound indignation. It was regarded both as markedly disrespectful to the British Minister referred to and as implying the Chancellor's acceptance of the offensive allegations current in Germany with regard to the British troops in South Africa. Mr. Chamberlain did not keep the country waiting long for his reply. On January 11, at Birmingham, he said he knew that in some quarters foreign animosity against this country, which, in his opinion, was promoted by the libels against the British Army and Government spread by British political partisans, was attributed to the indiscreet oratory of the Colonial Secretary. Mr. Chamberlain then proceeded: "What I have said I have said. I withdraw nothing. I qualify nothing. I defend nothing. As I read history, no British Minister has ever served his country faithfully and at the same time enjoyed popularity abroad. . . . I make allowance for foreign criticism. I will not follow an example which has been set to me. I do not want to give lessons to a foreign Minister, and I will not accept any at his hands. I am responsible only to my own Sovereign and to my own countrymen; but I am ready to meet that form of criticism which is made at home, which is manufactured here for export by the friends of every country but their own; and in reference to these I would ask you, How can it be due to a few words in a speech that was delivered only a few weeks ago that for months and for years, from the very beginning of this war, the foreign Press has teemed with abuse of this country? How can the Colonial Secretary be made responsible for what Sir E. Grey has called the foul and filthy lies,' for what Lord Rosebery has described as the vile and infamous falsehoods. which have been disseminated in foreign countries, without a syllable of protest, without the slightest interference by the responsible authorities? No, my opponents must find some other scapegoat. They must look further for the causes of that feeling of hostility which I do not think we have deserved,

but which has existed, more or less, for a century at least, which always comes to the surface when we are in any difficulty, but which, I am glad to say, has never done us any serious harm."

It had been recently stated, Mr. Chamberlain continued, that the Government coming into office found peace with honour abroad; on the contrary six burning questions were left to Lord Salisbury which he had settled successfully-Siam, the Venezuelan boundary, the Hinterland question in our West African possessions as affecting Germany and France, Samoa and the Pacific Islands, and the French position on the Nile. Besides that, they maintained British interests in the East, and had got rid of a long-standing cause of difference with the United States by the Isthmian Canal Treaty. But what was even more important than the goodwill of foreign nations was the confidence and affection of their kinsmen beyond the sea. This war had united the British race throughout the world, and had shown that if we should have ever again, as we had done in the past, to fight for our existence against a world in arms, we should not be alone. Hardly any sacrifice could be too great for that. Mr. Chamberlain went on to refer to the evidences afforded by a recent speech by Mr. Seddon, "the powerful and patriotic Prime Minister of New Zealand," and by many other expressions of feeling in the Colonies, of the disapproval excited there by pro-Boer tactics at home. "A new factor," he said, had "entered into the politics of this country." It would be necessary in the future to have regard to the opinion of the Colonies, and when they were advised to negotiate in casual public-houses on the Continent, or to withdraw proclamations approved by Colonial Governments, or to accept terms of peace which would in substance, if not in form, preserve, as Lord Milner had said, political dualism in South Africa, they must remember that they were not entitled to make peace without the consent of their allies. Meanwhile the war went on, slowly, no doubt, but inevitably, to its settled conclusion. There had been a great improvement in the situation during the recess. The railways in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony were now working almost as in normal times. Every day a larger area was being cleared of the enemy, and being protected by that iron girdle of blockhouses which Lord Kitchener had devised. . . . "We are proud," continued Mr. Chamberlain, "of the general. We are proud of the Army. To compare any other army to it is to pay the highest compliment in our power. . . . We are proud also of our administrator -proud of Lord Milner-that great public servant whose labours no man can overestimate; who, day and night, is working out the great scheme for the regeneration of the new Colonies. . . . As the military operations progress the civil Government follows close upon their heels. When peace has been proclaimed we shall find an administration already in our

hands. The industry of the two Colonies is reviving. The refugees are returning in great numbers to their homes and their work. Large schemes of development are being devised, and preparation is being made for the resettlement of the land and for the resumption of agricultural operations. That is not all. The obsolete and corrupt legislation of the Transvaal Government has been reviewed. We have wiped the slate clean that is nothing, any schoolboy can do that-but we have written on the slate that we have cleaned the principles of just and honest government, under which in the future the two races may live in mutual respect, enjoying equal rights and equal liberties, and under which that vast population of natives for which we have become responsible may receive due protection and consideration."

66

This speech of Mr. Chamberlain's produced a very favourable impression both in Great Britain and throughout the Empire. Even among politicians here, to whom his personality and controversial methods were generally uncongenial, there was a widespread feeling that he had given the German Chancellor exactly the right kind of answer, and the great body of the nation which had throughout supported the war applauded him with unmistakable enthusiasm. The Corporation of the City of London gave utterance to the general feeling at home by a unanimous resolve (Jan. 16) that an address (in a suitable gold casket) should be presented to the Colonial Secretary, expressive of the admiration of this Court of his statesmanlike policy and patriotic action in the true interests of the British Empire." Two days earlier the Australian House of Representatives, on the motion of the Federal Premier, Mr. Barton, seconded by Mr. Reid, Leader of the Opposition, had unanimously expressed its "indignation at the baseless charges made abroad against the honour of the people and the humanity and valour of the soldiers of the Empire. The resolution had in view the despatch of another Australian contingent, 1,000 strong, as had been just requested by Mr. Chamberlain, and promptly agreed to by the Federal Government. A similar reinforcement was asked from and as readily accorded by New Zealand, and at a great meeting at Wellington in that Colony, which was addressed by Mr. Seddon, the Premier, and the Chief-Justice, Sir Robert Stout, emphatic appreciation was expressed of the complete refutation by Mr. Chamberlain of foreign slanders upon the honour of the British forces serving in South Africa. In a word, it was evident that the sole effect of Count von Bülow's clumsy attempt to gratify anti-British feeling in Germany-some further manifestations of which feeling he almost immediately found it necessary to reprove in the Reichstag-had been to quicken the sense of British Imperial unity and to strengthen the position of the Minister whom he had so imprudently endeavoured to rebuke.

Very wisely King Edward was advised to make an allusion