MR. JAMESON.
LTO TIIR EDITOR OF THIO SPEOTATOR."3
Sia,—You say in your article, in the Spectator of November 22nd, on "The Jameson Incident," that Jameson's own state- ment clearly shows he saw the murder, and sanctioned it by his presence when he could have prevented it. That he did see the murder is the case ; but is there not another way of regarding the other incidents you refer to ? Jameson's letter was, as may clearly be seen, written in a great hurry, and in the way he puts what he saw, he incriminates himself, for he says he noted the girl's demeanour as she walked to the execution.
But to those who believe that Jameson most certainly did not buy the girl, and in reality did not know what was going to occur, there is another interpretation. Jameson notices a crowd proceeding with the girl, who is suddenly slaughtered, and he expresses his horror at the atrocity—and surely he is to be believed in this—and then, and not till then, did it flash across him, he had seen the poor child moving like a sheep to the slaughter, though, by the way he in his hurry writes, the reader naturally is led to the conclusion that all throughout Jameson knew the girl was going to execution.
Can this view of the case be deemed special pleading I' Surely not. We have each of us to draw our own conclusion from Jameson's statement. He could have said nothing, or denied the truth of Assad Farran's story ; but he does neither. He comes forward and narrates, though he does so without the detail that was so absolutely necessary to clear him, what part he had in the incident ; and it seems to me that Jameson, being what he was, a true-hearted, kindly English gentleman, we are bound, instead of taking the severest view of his conduct, to take the most merciful and lenient one.
And, Sir, if the victim was instantaneously slain, Jameson not being aware she was to be slaughtered, how could he, if he had so desired, have interfered in her behalf P—I am, Sir, &c., ALFRED HARCOURT, Colonel.
Junior United Service Club, November 24th.
[We have been contending for Colonel Harcourt's theory on a priori grounds ; but if the matter were before a jury, he would have to explain away Mr. Bonny's letter.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
