in the curtailment of the British Empire, if he believed in nothing else. Balfour was very sorry that he had not a chance of meeting you when you were here, as he had looked forward to your coming in the hope of making your acquaintance.—I am, yours very truly, “(Signed) W. T. Stead.”
The following is Mr. Schnadhorst’s reply:—
[C.]
42, Parliament Street, S.W.
June 4th, 1892.
My dear Rhodes,—I regret very much I did not see you when you were here, as your letter places me in a position of extreme perplexity. Your donation was given with two conditions, both of which will be observed, but in a postscript you referred to John Morley’s speech on Egypt in the sense in which you have written about Mr. Gladstone’s reference to the same subject. It is eighteen months ago since I saw you, when you referred to the subject in conversation, and I told you then, as I think now, that J. M.’s speech was very unwise, and that it did not represent the policy of the party. The General Election has been coming near, and is now close at hand. Your gift was intended to help in the Home Rule struggle. It could do so only by being used before the election. Being satisfied that I could observe your conditions, and that J. M.’s speech was simply the expression of an individual opinion, I felt at liberty to pledge your funds for various purposes in connection with the election. This was done to a large extent before Mr. G. spoke at Newcastle. I am bound to say that in my view his reference to Egypt was no more than an expression of a pious opinion. It did not alter my feelings that a Liberal Government would not attempt withdrawal. Sir W. Harcourt was annoyed at Mr. G.’s reference at the time, and since I heard from you I have seen Lord Rosebery, who will become Foreign Minister, and who I am satisfied from what he said to me would not sanction such a policy. Mr. Gladstone, I expect, had been worked on by a few individuals, possibly by J. M. alone; but in my opinion it would be simply madness for him to add to
