It is part of the policy of the Transvaal only to become an accessory after the fact. Its subjects go forth and stir up trouble among the natives, and then probably the Boer Government intervenes "in the interests of humanity," and takes, or tries to take, the country. This process is always going on, and, unless the British Government puts a stop to it, always will go on. We shall probably soon hear that it is developing itself in the direction of Matabeleland. A country the size of France, which could without difficulty accommodate a population of from eight to ten millions of industrious folk, is not large enough for the wants of a Boer people, numbering something under fifty thousand souls. Every young Boer must have his six or more thousand acres of land on which to lord it. It is his birthright, and if it is not forthcoming he goes and takes it by force from the nearest native tribe. Hence these continual complaints. Of course, there are two ways of looking at the matter. There is a party that does not hesitate to say that the true policy of this country is to let the Boers work their will upon the natives, and then, as they in turn fly from civilisation towards the far interior, to follow on their path and occupy the lands that they have swept. This plan is supported by arguments about the superiority of the white races and their obvious destiny of rule. It is, I confess, one that I look upon as little short of wicked. I could never discern a superiority so great in ourselves as to authorise us, by right divine as it were, to destroy the coloured man and take his lands. It is difficult to see why a Zulu, for instance, has not as much right to live in his own way as a Boer or an Englishman. Of course, there is another extreme. Nothing is more ridiculous than the length to which the black brother theory is sometimes driven by enthusiasts. A savage is one thing, and a civilised man is another; and though civilised men may and do become savages, I personally doubt if the converse is even possible. But whether the civilised man, with his gin, his greed, and his dynamite, is really so very superior to the savage is another question, and one which would bear argument, although this is not the place to argue it. My point is, that his superiority is not at any rate so absolutely overwhelming as to justify him in the wholesale destruction of the savage and the occupation of his lands, or even in allowing others to do the work for him if he can prevent it. The principle might conceivably be pushed to inconvenient and indecent lengths. Savagery is only a question of degree. When all true savages have been wiped out, the most civilised and self-righteous among the nations may begin to give the term to those whom they consider to be on a lower scale than themselves, and apply the argument also. Thus there are "cultured" people in another land who do not hesitate to say that the humble writers of these islands are rank and rude barbarians not to