SIR BARTLE FRERE'S DEFENCE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2157, 17 February 1880, Page 3

SIR BARTLE FRERE'S DEFENCE.

In an ejftborate despatch to the SecretavjjpoT S tate for the Colonies, dated jut) e 30, which has its place in a Blue-book recently issued, Sir Bailie Frere explains and vindicates his Zulu policy. The document in question contains little,-more in the way of solid fact and argument than was to be found, or was ait least foreshadowed in Sir Bartlc Frere’-s-previous communication to Sir Michaeljlicks-Beach of Jan. 24. The points which he seeks to establish are three—First that Cetewayo’s object was one of immediate and bloodthirsty hostility to ' England;' secondly, that Cetewayo did not receive - an ultimatum of the sudden and peremptory kind which Sir Bartlc Frere has been charged with sending | thirdly, that Sir Bartle Frere subsequently did not exceed the duties with which lie was entrusted. Commenting oh this defence the “ Standard ” says:— In reference to the ultimatum Sir Bartlc Frere’s contention is more ingenious than conclusive. He admits that the message he sent to the Zulu King might among civilised uationshave led to an ultimatum ; but in the case of Cetewayo, “ if he had been disposed for peace it could only have led to discussion and negotiation.” Sir Bartle Frere has no wish however to free himself from responsibility under any technicalities regarding what is or is not an ultimatum. “ If,” he he continues, “ the message sent by my instructions were such as might reasonably be expected to lead to war, my responsibility would be virtually little less than had I attempted to send a formal ultimatum without authority from Her Majesty’s Government.” But, he maintains Cetewayo was intent upon war already and for that reason only the message had the effect of an ultimatum. In other words, the only test by which the issue whether Sir Bartle Frere did or did not “send a formal ultimatum without authority from her Majesty’s

Government” can. be decided is the purely subjective one of his own impression of what was passing in Cetewayo’s mind, which again he derives from the reception of the message. This is arguing in a circle with a vengence. The whole despatch simply begs the question at issue. It is a tissue of assumptions. Sir Bartle Frere did what he believed was best, and he did it on considerations which were conclusive to himself, and which he felt confident would be conclusive to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had he been on the spot. So he took the initiative, and assumed an'overwhelming responsibility, rather than wait for specific instructions from home. The result did not justify Sir Bartle Frere’s action, nor does the latest despatch justify it; and the history of the empire would be seriously compromised if Sir Bartle Frere’s policy were to be taken as a precedent by colonial administrators in other parts of the world.