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, British Commissioner for Bechuanaland, came to England in 1882.  In the following year the Delegates from the Transvaal came to London, and in 1884 the Convention was signed, which was called the “London Convention.”

These years included events of great interest.  Mr. Mackenzie wrote:—­“On my way to England I met a friend who had just landed in South Africa from England.  He warned me ’If you say a good word for South Africa, Mr. Mackenzie, you will get yourself insulted.  They will not hear a word on its behalf in England; they are so disgusted with the mess that has been made.’

’They had good reason to be disgusted, but I want all the same to tell them a number of things about the true condition of the country.’

‘They will not listen,’ my friend declared, ’They will only swear at you.’  This was not very encouraging, but it was not far from the truth as to the public feeling at that time.

Being in the——­counties of England I was offered an introduction to the Editor of a well-known newspaper, who was also a pungent writer on social questions under a nom de plume which had got to be so well known as no longer to serve the purpose of the writer’s concealment of identity.