[ocr errors]



upon to obey. The attorney-general, to pass the matter over without a formal
do him justice, had already pointed out division recording the names of those
that Mr. Hawkesley could have who voted. The committee clerk, how-
further privilege than Mr. Rhodes had. ever, was demanded and sent for, and
And Mr. Hawkesley, to do him justice the names were taken down.
also, had frankly admitted that Mr. Then came a still more audacious
Rhodes could allege no ground of priv. coup. It was obvious to all the world
ilege at all.

that Mr. Hawkesley's examination was What was the result? The story will not concluded. It was admitted by hardly be believed, and yet it is true. everybody that certain members of the The Opposition members of the com

committee had not yet had an oppormittee had been meeting, of course, tunity of exercising their obvious and from time to time to consider their ac- parliamentary right to cross-examine tion. Upon this question they

an important witness called before il agreed. At a meeting, we believe in committee of the House. The governSir William Harcourt's room, upon one ment, however, with the astounding of these eventful days, they declared support of the Opposition Front Bencu, loudly, and none more loudly than Sir resolved that this also was inexpedient, William Harcourt himself, that the at

and the motion that Mr. Hawkesley tempt on the government side to keep should go back into the box, in order back the cablegrams was scandalous that his cross-examination might be and intolerable, and that their produc- completed, was lost. The

two tion must be forced. To the amaze- gentlemen alone voted for it. ment of at least certain members on

Now let us see for a moment what that side of the committee, when the Mr. Hawkesley had to say. There is committee met to consider as to re

not the slightest indication in his eviporting Mr. Hawkesley's refusal to the dence that he is concealing anything House, Sir William Harcourt declared from the committee, and no

one apfor the opposite course. The ostensible pears to allege that he is anything but argument was that to take proceedings an honorable and truthful person. He upon Mr. Hawkesley's, or rather Mr. told the committee, on May 25, quite Rhodes's, defiance of the committee, frankly, that when Mr. Rhodes came to would involve delay, and that it was

England “to face the music,” in the extremely important to present a report

first days of February, 1896, be inupon the raid immediately. It was

stantly saw him, and as they travelled answered that this, to put it plainly, together from Plymouth to London, on was nonsense, since there nothing

the very day of the great man's arrival, to prevent the committee from report

a conversation of the utmost imporing on the raid, after having invited

tance took place. It may be that Mr. the House to deal with Mr. Hawkesley, Rhodes was complaining that the Coloor with those behind him. Resistance, nial Office was dealing hardly with however, was useless. The proposal him, considering the communications that Mr. Hawkesley should be re

that had passed beforehand. Probably ported only secured, as has been al- the Colonial Office, under the circumready stated in the Times, two votes, stances, could not help itself, in view those of Mr. Labouchere and Mr. of the international situation which Blake. Others, such as Mr. Sydney then existed; but let that pass. We Buxton, remained puzzled. It

have it from Mr. Hawkesley that Mr. clear that the government had sud. Rhodes told him then about these cadenly, by some means unknown, se

bles which he had received from Encured the support of Sir William Har- gland in 1895. He evidently said that court, and presumably his more of cial he had been by these cables assured colleagues, to the policy of silence. An that the Colonial Office

“in it." attempt, we believe, was even made to He told Mr. Hawkesley, to the




[ocr errors]

careful language of that solicitor, that were not merely in Mr. Rhodes's

po3 these cables "had been considered by session, but had, as a matter of fact, him and communicated by him to oth- been used to obtain the support of ers," "that they had been acted upon," other persons in Africa. This was not "that he had used them”—as support- necessarily blackmail. If we assume ing his action—"and had communicated for the moment that the Colonial Office them to those whom it concerned." In was "in it," it was sufficiently proper point of fact, Mr. Hawkesley makes it that they should be told at once that clear that in the train from Plymouth others-say, for example, some of the Mr. Rhodes assured him, not that he Johannesburgers and all the military held possible blackmailing documents, officers that accompanied Jamesonbut that he had documents on the faith had been induced to go into this emiof which he, Mr. Rhodes, had secured nently risky enterprise by the knowlthe co-operation of various persons in edge that Mr. Chamberlain was cognithe Jameson Plan, because these docu- zant of what was going on. As a matments made it clear to the persons in ter of fact, everybody understands that question--and, presumably, to Mr. Sir John Willoughby and the other of. Rhodes himself-that the Colonial Of- ficers holding the queen's commission fice was cognizant of what was going were induced to enter the Transvaal on on. It is not probable, in any view, the theory that the queen's government that Mr. Rhodes was lying to his solic. did not object, and that strong repreitor. It is, to say the least, improbable sentations have since been made that that when he made this communication on that account it was unjust to dehe was telling of things which he and prive them of their commissions. his agents had deliberately faked up The result of the conversation in the in order to defraud third parties into a train was curious and interesting. By belief that the Colonial Office

his chief's authority, Mr. Hawkesley at cognizant of plans which had never once saw Mr. Fairfield, with whom he been in any way disclosed to them. was on personal terms. What passed Even Mr. Rhodes's worst enemies will is not a matter of recollection, because hardly think him capable of that. It he produces two letters which make it would be at least as foolish as it would clear. He told Mr. Fairfield that some be criminal, and it is wholly inconsist of his "various clients” had "sent telent with the general facts of the situa- egrams, about Mr. Chamberlain or the tion. Some other explanation must be Office,” to the Cape, and

that somefound.

thing which Mr. Chamberlain and the Now the missing cables are undoubt- Office were "supposed to have said" edly the most important part of the had reached five or more persons supcommunications referred to in the con- posed to be important. Mr. Fairfield versation disclosed by Mr. Hawkesley. communicated this to Sir R. Meade, It is for that very

that Mr. and they both agreed that they must Hawkesley speaks of it.

The caso,

tell Mr. Chamberlain. He asked for however, does not stop there. Mr. copies of the telegrams and for infor. Hawkesley goes on with equal frank- mation as to how much of the contents ness to say that he thereupon advised of these telegrams had “reached the Mr. Rhodes to communicate these ca. five, or whatever number it was, and bles to the Colonial Office. What this if so, whether it was in substance or meant is plain. It meant that as Mr. in words." Mr. Fairfield also adds this Rhodes was about to bare his decisive careful phrase: “He does not recollect interview with Mr. Chamberlain as to saying anything anent the insurrection the consequences of the raid and its which was supposed to have been imcollapse, he should first of all explaiu pending which he would greatly care to Mr. Chamberlain that the communi- about if it became public.” These are cations in question, suggesting the pre- Mr. Fairfield's words. It seems obvivious knowledge of the Colonial Office, ous that they implied that the Colonial





Office had supposed a revolution to be with the knowledge and assent of the impending, and that Mr. Chamberlain Imperial Authorities." We can only himself had said something about it presume that Mr. Hawkesley considwhich might have been communicated ered that the copy cables he had subin the way Mr. Hawkesley alleged. All mitted to the Colonial Office at it asserts is that Mr. Chamberlain earlier stage tended in the same direcwould not greatly care if anything he tion. Whether the sending of them is had said in that line were made pub- to be considered as a general' "blacklic. Mr. Hawkesley's reply is equally mailing" effort to obtain terms by a interesting. He relieved Mr. Chamber- threat of publication, or as a legitimate lain's mind about the existence of effort to show the government that other documents by the statement their alleged dabbling in the business that all “the information given to the had led others into it, the result is the people in Johannesburg had been oral.”' same. If there was really no foundaThereby we learn that apart from the tion for the charge, Mr. Hawkesley anıl military officers, or any other persons the whole group were guilty of incredwho may have been pacified by infor- ible stupidity. Quis credat? mation about the attitude of the Colo- One word only need be added upon nial Office, such information had actu- another branch of the same subject. It ally been used to help to raise the bogus concerns Miss Flora Shaw. She was, insurrection, Mr. Hawkesley, evi- as we all know, a habitué of the Colodently under further instructions from nial Office. She had the run of it, as Mr. Rhodes, elected to drop the discuss the Colonial authority on the Times. sion at that point. He did so with all- She was also deep in the Rhodesian other significant phrase: “Mr. C. ring, and was beyond doubt personally knows what I know, and can shape his devoted to Mr. Rhodes. She knew, she course with this knowledge.” As to says, what Doctor Harris knew. She what that meant, we shall be better also communicated her views directly able to form our opinion when we see and indirectly to her chief at the Cape. the cables themselves.

It is needless to repeat the well-known The matter was revived in May. and somewhat comic references to her Apparently it must have been rerived in the published cables. It is sufficient in some connection with the question, to say that they indicate that it was what was to be done about the officers fully supposed in the group of whiclı and their commissions. The evidence she formed part that the Colonial Oiso far given does not give us any clear fice was neither ignorant hostile. light as to the exact circumstances The extraordinary telegram of Doctor under which the copies were ultimately Harris, “I have already sent Flora to asked for, and sent to Mr. Chamberlain convince J. Chamberlain support Times on June 6 by Mr. Hawkesley. The newspaper,” has not so far been serifact that by the highly irregular ac- ously explained by anybody. Yet it tion of Mr. Chamberlain

and his must have had a reason at the tiuje. friends the opportunity for cross-exam- Probably it meant “to convince him of ining Mr. Hawkesley was refused, pre- the support of the Times." If so, it is cludes the public for the present from a pretty item. Miss Shaw herself inquiring further into this interesting stated in reply to Mr. Labouchere that point. We do know that, after the of- in her remarkable cablegrams as to the ficers had been sentenced, Mr. Hawkes- expediency of hurrying up the revoluley prepared a statement to the War tion, she “could not have said that the Office, which is in evidence, in which it Colonial Office thought it desirable that was directly stated, on the honor of Sir it should come off at once, because the John Willoughby, that he and his offi- did not know it. But she added, "I cers were induced to ride in by being could have said that probably if it was informed “that the steps are taken to happen they would like it soon." Her




position in the matter remains some- lain, of course, professes in words his what enigmatical, but it will hardly be private desire that everything should suggested by any one that it is likely come out. He has not, however, asthat she would have been a party to sisted in the attainment of that result. mislead persons in South Africa by The consequence is that a national and false information as to the attitude of international question of

very grave Mr. Chamberlain.

importance has arisen. It is said, in The position, then, stands this. The circles usually well informed, that Colonial Office conceals its own docu- when the raid occurred, it became necnients. From none of its officials, hare essary to give assurances to foreign we had any detailed or frank statement governments, and in particular to Geras to their relations to South African many, that the queen's government affairs during the critical period. The was in no way compromised. These high commissioner himself has not assurances, it is said, were given. It is been examined. Mr. Rhodes bas been even said that they were given allowed to go without any serious in. pressly in the name of the queen, quiry into this branch of the case. The Something of this kind may well have inost important cables are refusel by happened; but it is hard to see how, if Mr. Rhodes's order, and the committee it did happen, and if the Colonial 01decline to exercise their power to com

fice was as innocent as it claims to be, pel the production of them. The story, the disclosure of the facts can do in fact, so far as it concerns this ques- anything but confirm the queen's tion of the truth or falsity of the alle- word. gation that Mr. Chamberlain was "in

That documents exist which are supit," is being smothered up, with an au- posed to be compromising, and which dacious disregard of the principles the very authors of them allege to be which guide all ordinary tribunals. The compromising, is a fact past hiding. It last steps in this proceeding have been casts, unless it is cleared up, a damntaken with the direct assent of the ing doubt. Therefore it would appear leader of the Opposition. Everybody, to be the duty of all honest men, and, therefore, is inquiring what reason can

above all, of the Parliament of Great have induced Sir William Harcourt Britain, to see that an immediate end to execute this startling change of is put to a policy which may be aptly fropt.

described as “thimble-rigging," and There is only one reason that can,

that the truth, whether it suits with any probability, be assigued—that Rhodes or Mr. Chamberlain, or neither is, that some member of the govern- of them, must be told at last. ment has made a "Front Bench com

This is a high question of privilege, munication” to the leader of the Op- and the whole House is concerned in position, indicating to hiin esplicitly it. It is for the House to act. that there are “reasons of State" for

QUÆSITOR. stopping the disclosures. There can be little doubt that this is what has happened, and conjecture, not only in this country but elsewhere, will naturally be keen to know what the

From The Nineteenth Century. nature of this momentous disclosure


The art of conversation has suffered If Mr. Chamberlain as abso

its lutely free from knowledge of the in England from the example of Jameson plan as he has professed to

most famous professor. Dr. Johnson

understood it theoretically, but even be, it is hard to see how full disclosure could do any damage to the empire, or

so only to a limited extent. He could do anything but good to the colo- supposed to form his view of it in acnial secretary himself. Mr. Chamber- cordance with the rule of Bacon.






[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

In all kinds of speech, whether pleasant, else, and sometimes affected to despise grave, severe, or ordinary, it is convenient it. When Boswell asked him, in his to speak leisurely, and rather drawlingly importunate fashion, what

the than hastily, because hasty speech con

use of meeting people at dinner, where founds the memory, and oftentimes, besides the unseemliness, drive a man either membering, “Why, to eat and drink to

no one ever said anything worth reto stammering, or nonplus, or harping on that which should follow; whereas a slow

gether,” replied the Doctor, "and to speech conformeth the memory, addeth a

promote kindness; and, sir, this is bet. conceit of wisdom to the hearers, besides a

ter done when there is no solid conscemliness of speech and countenance.

versation; for when there is, people differ in opinion and get


bad This does not strike one as a' model humor, or some of the company are for him who would be either brilliant left out and feel themselves uneasy; or agreeable, and excludes natural. it was for this reason that Sir Robert ness, which is one of the greatest Walpole said he always talked indecharms of conversation.

cencies at his own table, because in That Johnson did not slavishly fol- them all could join.” It is certain that low Bacon's precept is very certain. this was the kind of conversation most So far from being “leisurely," in vogue with our ancestors, and in jumped down the throats of all who “the good old times,” such as the days disagreed with him. “You may be of chivalry, there was probably little good-natured, sir,” said Boswell, with else. unusual spirit, “but you are not good- Later on, and even to some extent tohumored (which the doctor had just day, the essence of good conversation plumed himself on being). I believe was thought to be contest. Even that you would pardon your opponents if graceful-minded and sweet tempered they had time to deprecate your ven- writer, Robert Louis Stevenson, falls geance; but punishment follows SO into the error when discoursing on this quick after sentence that they cannot subject. With Johnson, opposition escape.” The idea of his ever being at was the very salt of life, and his best a nonplus is ridiculous indeed, though sayings were evoked by it. When 111 he was sometimes at a loss for a re. one day and unable to exert himself, partee from sheer indignation. The on Burke's name being mentioned, he rights of his little passage of arms suddenly exclaimed: “That fellow with Adam Smith are much disputed. calls forth all my powers. Were I to That he remarked: “You are a liar," see Burke now it would kill me.” seems tolerably certain, but whether Antagonism of all kinds is, however, the other philosopher did retort in the inimical to social enjoyment, and even quite unprintable and by no

argument should be employed but pertinent words that are attributed to sparingly. The object of good conhim is doubtful. At all events, the versation is not to convince, we are whole affair was not a good example of not pleading at the bar, or preaching polite conversation. Johnson's great in the pulpit-but to exchange ideas, mistake was in confounding it with expressed in the most attractive form, monologue. “We had good talk this to ameliorate, to interest, or to amuse. evening,” he said

occasion. It is a mistake to suppose that when returning from a party where change of society is necessary for its scarcely any one had been able to get enjoyment. When friends are found a word in edgeways except himself. to our mind, we do not tire of their If he had said: “I had good talk," the talk. It is not likely, though it is quite observation would have been fault possible, that a stranger may be less, but of conversation such. he acquisition, and a company of intellisincerely believed had taken place gent persons who meet one another are there had been none. He could define independent of recruits. it of course, as he could everything Goldsmith, who never wrote a fool


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors][ocr errors]






[ocr errors]
« ElőzőTovább »