Even in such a stronghold of Liberalism as Dundee there was no active sign of any dissent from Mr. Balfour's attitude but while on the main question at issue between Great Britain and the Transvaal this country is practically unanimous, there is a growing feeling that Mr. Chamberlain's diplomacy has been by no means faultless, Sir William Harcourt has shown conclusively chat it was Mr. Chamberlain and not the Boer Government which first introduced the question. He has urged with much force that Mr. Chamberlain is wrong ud the Transvaal is right on the question; and the question hax been elaborately examined into by "Diplomaticus" of the Fortnightly, who, though on the main question he. is strong supporter of the jovernment, has arrived of the same conclusion. That Great Britain has certain paramount rights over the Transvaal which some people might describe by the term "'suzerainty"" is beyond question; but the "suzerainty" on which Me. Chamberlain relied is the suzerainty*referred to in the preamble of the Convention of 1881, und *Diplomaticus" produces convincing evidence that, in spite of a cortin ambiguity of language on which Mr. Chamberlain relies, this suzerainty was deliberately and inten tionally abolished" by the Convention of 1884. The controversy has undoubtedly led toa revival of the disposition among Conservatives to distrust Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. J. M. Maclean, indeed, has yone so far as to declare that Mr. Chamberlain, "more than any other man living was responsible for the surrenders of 1881 and 1884, and he seems willing, with all the intemperate zeal of a renegade, to work out the remembrance of those acts of weakness with a sea of blood." But Mr. Maclean ix of course not a representative Conservati He is never happier than when he is attacking his own party.
A TRAFALGAR SQUARE. DEMONSTRATION, But on the main question of the necessity of insisting, even to the point of wax, on the righting of the Out-Innders' wrongs, the whole country is, as T have said, practically unanimous. Of this the Trafalgar Square demonstration, promoted by the Transvaal Committee" to protest against war, afforded a striking illustration. In one respect, and one respect only, the movement was successful. It drew to the square a crowd of fifty or sixty thousand people. And they were not of the usual type of demonstration, They were " well-dressed crowd, and an earnest crowd; but they were almost unanimously in opposition to the speakers who had come to address. The speakers, indeed, entirely failed to obtain a hearing, They -were pelted with rotten eyes, and a few even more unjustifiable acts of were committed, such as the throwing of open penknives; but no serious harm was done. No speakers were driven out of the Square, and the demonstration resulved itself into one of enthusiastic support for the Government in its resolution, Still the discussion on the franchise will not be without its effect. It has led to the hope that the Government. will make it perfectly clear in their ultimatum that if we have to go to war it will not be on the question of the suzerainty, but to secure justice for Britons and other foreigners in the Transvaal.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.