ere
subjected.... The Rev. John Mackenzie brought a lamentable record of
outrage and cruelty.... Dr. Dale particularly urged that the Government
should insist on carrying out the 18th article of the Convention of
Pretoria. 'The policy of the Government seemed to me both righteous and
expedient, singularly courageous and singularly Christian. But that
policy included two distinct elements. It restored to the Boers internal
independence, it reserved to the British Government powers for the
protection of native races on the Transvaal frontier. It is not
unreasonable for those who in the face of great obloquy supported the
Government in recognising the independence of the Transvaal, to ask that
it should also use its treaty powers, and use them effectively for the
protection of the natives.' To this statement the _Pall Mall_ (John
Morley) replied that the suzerainty over the Transvaal maintained by us
was a 'shadowy term,' and that those who demanded that our reserved
rights should be enforced were bound to face the question whether they
were willing to fight to enforce them. Was Dr. Dale ready to run the
risk of a fresh war in South Africa? Dr. Dale replied, should the
British Government and British people regard with indifference the
outrages of the Boers against tribes that we had undertaken to
protect?... 'If the Government of the Republic cannot prevent such
crimes as are declared to have been committed in the Bechuana country,
and if we are indifferent to them, we shall have the South African
tribes in a blaze again before many years are over, and for the safety
of our Colonists we shall be compelled to interfere.' In the ensuing
Session the Ministerial policy was challenged in both Houses of
Parliament, and in the Commons Mr. Forster indicted the Government for
its impotence to hold the Transvaal Republic to its engagements. Dr.
Dale wrote a long letter to Mr. Gladstone:--'If it had been said that
power to protect the natives should be taken but not used, it is at
least possible that a section of the party might have declined to
approve the Ministerial policy.... The one point to which I venture to
direct attention is the contrast, as it appears to me, between the
declaration of Ministers in '81, in relation to the native races
generally, and the position which has been taken in the present debate.'
Mr. Gladstone's reply was courteous, but not reassuring."

* * * * *

Mr. Mackenzie, B