SIR A. MILNER AND MR. J. MOLTENO.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."' Sts,—My attention has been called to the following para- graph in your article of December 30th : "After the publica- tion, without leave, of notes of an alleged conversation to which he had not invited reporters—a breach of honourable conduct which cannot be too strongly condemned—we ought not to be surprised if Sir A. Milner were somewhat suspicious and reticent." This is a reference to the publication of the notes of an interview between Sir A. Milner and Mr. James Molteno, and charges the latter, as well as myself, with " a breach of honourable conduct," in having published that interview in the London Press. This is a serious charge. I beg that you will allow me to place your readers in possession of the following facts, which, doubtless owing to the refusal of the majority of the daily Press of London to publish my letter in explanation, while criticising the publication of the interview in question, are not known to your readers. Mr. James Molten() was selected as the spokesman of the majority of the Members of the Cape Legislature to convey to, and receive communications from, Sir A. Milner upon the subject of the petition presented to the Queen through Sir A. Milner (the petition will be found set out in C. 9,530, p. 39). This petition, which deprecated the resort to force, and urged the holding of the friendly conference sug- gested by the Colonial Secretary and assented to by the Transvaal, had been presented to Sir A. Milner on Sep- tember 27th. It was a most critical time, and no answer having been received on October 4th, Mr. Molteno, on the representations of the signatories, saw Sir A. Milner in regard to a reply. This he did in his representative capacity, and at once reported what had transpired at the interview to his colleagues on his return. He could not have, and did not have, any private or confidential interview under such circum- stances. In order to be very exact, seeing the importance of the occasion, he made a note of a very minute character of all that transpired, and it is this very exact and careful note which was published, and to which, strange to say, objec- tion has been taken owing to its very minuteness and exact- ness. Upon Sir A. Milner taking exception to its accuracy in general terms, though not denying specifically the words, "I am determined to break the dominion of Afrika.nderdom," Mr. James Molteno wrote to the Cape Times at once as follows : " I adhere to the memorandum in every particular made at a time when the matter had burnt itself into my mind, and when I was face to face with the terrible fact for the first time borne home to me that war was imminent despite what our party and the Republics had done, and were prepared to do." Can it be alleged that a report made to the majority of the Members of the Cape Legislature on a subject of the first and most pressing public importance was in any sense a confidential or private one P But if at any time there was any doubt how it was regarded, even by Sir A. Milner himself, it has been set at rest, for in his disclaimer of the accuracy of the report he has not ventured to make such an objection to its publication. To aid our imaginations here—which are always weak in grasping facts at a distance —let us conceive that a report had been made to a majority of the Members of the English Parliament by one of their number deputed to see, let us say, the Foreign Secretary on a matter of urgent and extreme public importance; could it be for one moment successfully contended that the publica- tion of the report of the interview made to the Members was a breach of honourable conduct, or in any sense improper ? I trust to your sense of fairness to publish this letter in your [We publish Mr. Molteno's letter, but his defence seems to us in no way to improve his position. The essential point is the answer to the question, — Did Sir Alfred Milner realise that notes of the interview were being taken not by a neutral reporter, but by one of the interlocutors, and mean that they should be published P Of course he did not. If he bad meant his words to be published, he would have asked the whole deputation to meet him publicly, would have made them a speech, and won1,1 have allowed reporters to be present. He saw Mr. J Imes 111,)Iteno alone because he did not want his actual words to be published, though he was willing that their general sense should be conveyed to the members orally. We have heard of men taking advantage of a letter not being marked "Private," to publish it without the writer's leave, but we shall always consider such conduct worthy of the strongest condemnation. But putting aside all these arguments, we should like to know why, if Mr. James Molteno considered that Sir Alfred Milner meant the conversation to be considered public and non-confidential, he did not take the very obvious course of sending him the notes and asking him whether they were correct, and whether he had any objection to their being published. That would have been a plain and straightforward course to pursue, and would have needed no elaborate and artificial arguments to defend it. We have no objection to Mr. Molten() denouncing Sir Alfred Milner as much as he likes, and should never dream of calling him disloyal for so doing, but this is another matter, and his action cannot be passed over without an injury to public life. The Cape Dutch have the right to be strongly Afrikander in their sympathies, but they must, to quote Burke yet once more, "remember so to be Afrikanders as not to forget they are gentlemen."—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
