repeal. On accession to power he adopted the policy of his
predecessors, and affirmed that the annexation could never be
revoked. On June 8, 1880, he had written to this effect to Messrs.
Kruger and Joubert, the Transvaal deputation. Later on, in answer to
an appeal that he should allay the apprehensions of the loyalists,
who feared the results of the Boer agitation, he referred them to
this very letter as a final expression of opinion, and authorized the
publication of this message. When, however, peace had been concluded,
and the loyalists, amazed and heartbroken at their threatened
desertion, reminded him of his pledges and implored him to respect
them, he answered them in a letter which is surely without parallel
in the record of self-respecting Governments. The wriggling, the
equivocation, the distortion of phrases, the shameless 'explaining
away,' are of a character that would again justify the remark of
Lord Salisbury (then Lord Robert Cecil) in another matter many years
before, that they were 'tactics worthy of a pettifogging attorney,'
and even the subsequent apology--to the attorney. But what answer
could be made to a protest which reminded the right honourable
gentlemen of the following deliberate and official expression of his
Government's policy?--

In your letter to me (wrote Mr. White for the loyalists) you claim
that the language of your letter does not justify the description
given. With the greatest respect I submit that it does, and I will
quote the words on which I and also my colleagues base the opinion
that it does unequivocally pledge the Government to the
non-relinquishment of the Transvaal.

The actual words of your letter are: