the 22nd of January as saying:

'To disapprove the annexation of a country is one thing; to abandon
that annexation is another. Whatever we do, we must not blind
ourselves to the legitimate consequences of facts. By the annexation
obligations entailed by the annexation, and if in my opinion, and in
the opinion of many on this side of the House, wrong was done by the
annexation itself, _that would not warrant us in doing fresh,
distinct, and separate wrong by a disregard of the obligation which
that annexation entailed_. These obligations have been referred to in
this debate, and have been mentioned in the compass of a single
sentence. First, there was the obligation entailed towards the
English and other settlers in the Transvaal, perhaps including a
minority, though a very small minority, of the Dutch Boers
themselves; secondly, there was the obligation to the native races;
and thirdly, there was the obligation we entailed upon ourselves in
respect of the responsibility which was already incumbent upon us,
and which we, by the annexation, largely extended, for the future
peace and tranquillity of South Africa.'

Nor was this all. The loyalists proceeded to remind him that Lord
Kimberley, his Secretary of State for the Colonies, had telegraphed
in May, 1880, 'Under no circumstances can the Queen's authority in
the Transvaal be relinquished,' and had confirmed the telegram in a
despatch following; and that his lordship had also stated in the
House of Lords on May 24 that '... after a careful consideration of
the position, we have come to the conclusion that we could not
relinquish the Transvaal. Nothing could be more unfortunate than
uncertainty in respect to such a matter.' (Hansard, cclii., p. 208.)