University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk ...

51b"
the ßocro, the attempt to make non-intervention compatible
with philanthropy was impossible. The Church of England
mission in the Transvaal, the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel, was especially vehement about the agreement
restoring
Boar independence,
- "the degrading and disgraceful
compact to which we owe our relief. I will say nothing more
of it than that England little dreams its atrocity, "
(1) The
missions were developing a commitment to Imperial exponnion.
The importance of the philanthropic arguments was shown
by the trouble taken to refute then by the anti$imporialiuto.
The native question was a disturbing factor in an otherwise
clear cut case against aggression. The response from anti-
interventioniatn varied from outright denial to part-
acceptance +- with suitable excuses. Edward Verna,, the
chairman of the Transvaal Independence Committee, accused
the philanthropists of fxeabrication, « "ktieeionurion and
Protection Societies can hardly be said to be impartial; the
former at any rate, being in a great degree dependent on a
regular oupply of conoational stories for their oubacription.
The Protection Societies owe the whole reinen d'otre of their
continued existence to ouch stories and are bound to make
history to suit their purpose when they do not find it
ready to hand. " ( `)
Another member of the
(1) 8. P. ü. 11 SS. Lottore fron the Pretoria Diocooo$ Biohop of
r tofia 29th March 1881.
(2)
er 071 our yearn of rrotent in the Tranrvnul, 1881 p. 6«