in conflict with the London Convention.  Had the complaints been lodged with this Government, or with the proper officials or Courts, the facts could have been very easily arrived at, and it would have been proved that the few officials who were present at the meeting as a section of the public had done their best to prevent the irregularities, and that some of them had been hurt in their endeavours to preserve order.

Instead of expressing their disapproval of such complaints, and referring the petitioners to the local Courts, Her Majesty’s Government accepts those complaints, and gives them an official character by forwarding them for the information of this Government, and by publishing them in blue books for the information of the world.

Her Majesty’s Government will readily acknowledge that there is no State in the world with any sense of dignity, however weak and insignificant it may be, which can regard such matters with an indifferent eye; and when the relations of the two Governments are strained, then the mainspring must be looked for in this action of its subjects, which is not disapproved of by Her Majesty’s Government, and not in imaginary or trumped-up grievances.

The Edgar case is referred to by your Government as “the most striking recent instance of arbitrary action by officials, and of the support of such action by the Courts,” and this case is quoted as a conclusive test of the alleged judicial maladministration of this Republic; it will therefore be of interest to pause for a moment and consider it.  What are the true facts?

A certain Foster, “an Englishman,” was assaulted and felled to the ground, without any lawful cause, by a man named Edgar during the night of the 18th December, 1898; he lay on the ground as if dead, and ultimately died in the hospital.  Edgar escaped to his room, and some police came on the scene, attracted by the screams of the bystanders.  Amongst the police was one named Jones.  When they saw the man who had been assaulted lying as if dead, they went to Edgar’s apartments in order to arrest him as a criminal (he had indeed rendered himself liable for manslaughter, and apparently for murder).  As he was caught in the very act, the police officers were, according to the Laws not only of this Republic, but of all South Africa and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, justified in breaking open the door in order to arrest the culprit.  While doing so, Edgar, with a dangerous weapon, struck Jones a severe blow.  Under the stress of necessity the latter shot Edgar, from the effects of which he died.  The question is not if Jones was justified in taking this extreme step, for the State Attorney of the Republic had already given effect to his opinion that this was a case for the jury by prosecuting him for manslaughter.  The question is solely whether any jury in any country in the world would have found a man guilty of any crime under the circumstances set forth, and whether, if they did not find him guilty, the fact of their doing so would have been stamped and branded as a flagrant and remarkable instance of the maladministration of justice.