360 



The Review of Reviews. 



October 1. 1906. 



Mr. Laboncbere has cbarged me with breaking t.be mar- 

 ket; with effecting bear sales before the raid, and gener- 

 ally with having been a party to the planning it for 

 mirket purposes, using the Uitlanders" grievances as a pre- 

 tencei. I declare again upon oath that these charges are 

 absolutely false. I have offered to give the committee ac- 

 cess to the books of m.v firm to verify my statement. Mr. 

 Laboucbere has not asked me a single question in relation 

 to these charges, nor has he. to my knowledge, offered 

 one atom of evidence in support of his allegations. 1 

 therefore again appeal to you. Mr. Chairman, to express 

 the opinion in the name of the committee that Mr. 

 Laboucbere is hound in justice and in honour either to 

 establish the charges he has brought against me or to 

 withdraw those charges absolutely and entirely. I have 

 long awaited this opportunity of meetine these charges. 

 and I now confidently rely on the assistance of the com- 

 mittee in tills matter, which is so intimately connected 

 with the whole subject of their inquiry. 



After this, no one can be suqjrised to read in the 

 final Report that " Your Committee feel that in jus- 

 tice the\ ought to say that no evidence in support 

 of such a charge has been produced, and they hold 

 that the charge is entirely without foundation." 



MB. MABKHAMS ATTACK. 



.-\nother lil^ller less wary than Mr. Labouchere, 

 Mr. A. B. Markham, M.P., charged Mr. Beit and 

 Messrs. Eckstein with being nothing more nor less 

 than thieves and swindlers. But when he came to 

 set forth particulars which, in the judgment of the 

 Lord Chancellor, " were as widely different from 

 theft and swindling as could possibly be imagined," 

 Lord I.indlev declared that if these were all the par- 

 ticulars Mr. Markham could produce, judgment 

 ought to go against him by default: — 



Lord Lindle.v said he was sorry there was no application 

 on- the part of the plaintiffs for judgment for them, be- 

 cause he regarded this as an undefended action. There was 

 no defence to the action whatsoever unless the evidence 

 was given that they were thieves and swindlers in the 

 ordinarv sense of tlie words. The particulars gave no one 

 particular instance of any act of theft, and the plaintiffs 

 might have applied to strike out all the particulars, and. 

 as far as he could see, might have moved for judgment in 

 their favour. He saw no answer to such an application, 

 when the plaintiffs asked to strike out some particulars 

 as irrelevant: he was only surprised they did not ask to 

 strike out more. 



ME. BEIT AND THE WAK. 



After the Hush-up Committee had solemnly white- 

 washed Mr. Chamlierlain, I next met Mr. Beit at a 

 great gathering of South Africans at 26 Park Lane. 

 \\'e had assembled to bid good-bye to Mr. Rhodes. 

 It was at the beginning of May. Dr. Jameson had 

 been busy endeavouring to convince the London edi- 

 tors that the time was ripe for action against the 

 Boers. He hinted that Milner was impatient for 

 war, or rather for the menace of war. Thirty thou- 

 sand troops put on the water would make Oom Paul 

 climb down. I was agreeably surprised to find that 

 among all the Rhodesians present he was almost 

 alone in his desire for war. Mr. Rhodes contented 

 himself with saying that he would " ditto to Milner "' 

 whatever Milner said. Most of the others were 

 angry at the very suggestion of war. Mr. Beit was 

 most pacific. He said he saw no reason for wai. He 

 was qvite sure that the Boers could be induced to 

 n-ake a reasonable settlement. " For instance," said 

 he, " there is the suzerainty. It means nothing to 

 us ; but they think so much of it that if we were to 

 make a deal we could get what franchise »ve wanted 



in exchange for the suzerainty."' Mr. Beit was quite 

 right. We had already abandoned the suzerainty in 

 the Convention of 1884, but its ghost still walked. 

 Unfortunately. Mr. Chamberlain refused to lay the 

 ghost, and Mr. Beits excellent suggestion was dis- 

 regarded. 



THE WAB FEVEK DELIfilUM, 



I met Mr. Beit ag;un on the very eve of the war. 

 I dined at Park Lane to meet Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. 

 The issue then had passed not only out of the hands 

 ■ of Mr. Beit but out of those of Mr. Chamberlain. 

 For the first time in my life I felt profoundly sorry 

 for Mr. Chamberlain. .Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and his 

 crew of Jingoes were masters of the situation. As for 

 Mr. Beit, a sort of madness seemed to have come 

 over him. When a shrewd financial genius tock to 

 dreareintr dreams of the Boers of South Africa be- 

 coming the the first naval power of the world. I felt 

 as if I were in a lunatic asylum. But Mr. Beit 

 maintained, in all serious earnest, that if the Boers 

 were not crushed they would in a few years trans- 

 mute the gold of the Rand into battleships and 

 cruisers, and then farewell to the naval supremacy 

 of Great Britain. 



AFTER THE WAR. 



During the war I did not meet Mr. Beit very 

 often. After Mr. Rhodes's death I saw him nearly 

 every month. We discussed everything freely, agree- 

 ing to differ, and each recognising the sincerity of 

 our resjiective con\'ictions. Mr. Beit was never an 

 enemy of the Boers. He liked them personally, .ind 

 indeed sympathised with them so much that he 

 feared to give them the right of self-government. 

 Mr. Smuts in vain endeavoured to persuade him that 

 it was safe to concede responsible government to the 

 Transvaal. " I think," said Smuts, " it is an evil 

 conscience makes him afraid. ' Mr. Beit's own ac- 

 count of it came to practically the same thing. " Yoru 

 don't need to tell me," he said. " that the Boers will 

 acquiesce in the Union Jack. I know human nature ; 

 I know what I should feel if I had been treated as 



they have been treated. And if I got a chance ! 



So we must not give them a chanoe." \\Tien I re 

 peated the assurances of the Boer leaders that if we 

 would only keep our word thev would keep theirs, he 

 shix)k his head. 



HIS DISTBUST OF THE BOEBS. 



In the first place, I admit we have not kept our 

 word, neither have we paid our debts, although on 

 this point Mr. Beit was quite willing to meet them. 

 "Compensation."' he used to sav ; "that is only a 

 matter of some millions that can lie settled easily 

 enough so long as you don't cut the throat of the 

 mining industry. " In the second place. Mr. Beit 

 felt that the memories of the war were too recent 

 and the bitterness of their losses too keen for the 

 Boers ever to acquiesce even in the nominal over- 

 lordship of Great Britain. " I wish I could share 



