1900]

LETTER TO MRS. SOLLY

if he himself were to move in the matter they must convince him by an overwhelming mass of testimony. To attempt anything on any basis less than this, even if he were willing to do so, would be futile, and the merest folly. "We want," he replied, "a stream of facts concerning suppression of telegrams, opening of letters, arbitrary arrests, unfair trial, unjustifiable prison treatment, interference with free speech at meetings, but much information sent lacks the element of fulness of detail and accuracy which are vital for Parliamentary purposes." Anxious to comply with this very reasonable request, Mrs. Solly forwarded the above extract. from this letter, which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman afterwards described as not only a most innocent, but a most praiseworthy and reasonable one, to a Dutch clergyman, a stranger both to her and to Ellis, also resident in the Colony. By some means which have never been explained Mrs. Solly's letter came into the hands of the military authorities, and being found, was deliberately used and misrepresented for party purposes.

The whole incident belongs to a type common in the life of a Member of Parliament before whom grievances real and imaginary are constantly being laid. Obviously it is the duty of such a member to inquire into the facts of each case before bringing it to the notice of the legislature, and this very properly was what Ellis did.1

1 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's opinion of the whole proceeding was summarised in a letter written to Mr. Labouchere on August 22, 1900.

"Mark Lockwood, who is here," he writes, "told me that you were one culprit and that the other was no other than the ingenuous John Ellis, who was guilty of writing to some lady asking whether the stories of strange doings under martial law were authentic! If this is all, one may exclaim, tantæne animis cœlestibus ira? Can our Sec. of State be so small-minded?"-Life of Henry Labouchere, by Algar Thorold.

The Colonial Secretary had made vague allusions to letters from Members of Parliament found at Bloemfontein and Pretoria. Efforts were made in the House of Commons to have matters gone into while the House was sitting, but the Colonial Secretary, whilst technically dealing with the question before the rising of Parliament, gave the members implicated no opportunity of offering any explanation in the House.2 "Three-fourths of the

opposition were traitors," said a leading member of the Government, and the Duke of Devonshire committed himself to the expression of opinion that "the war was encouraged in the first instance by the letters of Mr. Labouchere, Dr. Clark, and Mr. Ellis." A Conservative association issued a mammoth poster headed "Radical Traitors" which declared that Members of the Opposition had been "in correspondence with the enemy." Immediately following these words came the extract from Ellis's letter to an

English subject already quoted. This production concluded with an appeal to the electors to safeguard the interests of the country, and see that they were not bartered by these traitors. Ellis promptly took steps to bring the matter before the Courts, and applied for an injunction to restrain the publication of the poster. Mr. Justice Bucknill, however, saw technical grounds for refusing the application. In giving his decision in the High Court he used these words which completely exonerated Ellis:

1 vide p. 183.

8

2 The other members were Mr. Henry Labouchere and Dr. G. B. Clark, but with their letters that of Ellis was in no way connected.

3 "I am asked," said Mr. Justice Bucknill, "to draw the inference that it is stated as a fact, and falsely stated, that Mr. Ellis was in correspondence with the Boers for the purpose of obtaining the information. The poster makes no such statement."

1900]

FIFTH ELECTION CONTEST

It will probably follow from the proceedings that have taken place in this Court, that there will be sufficient to counteract any ill effects which the poster might otherwise have had when I have stated, as I do distinctly state, that it has been proved before me that Mr. Ellis did not enter into correspondence with the enemy, but simply wrote a letter to a lady residing in Cape Colony in order to obtain information for Parliamentary purposes, which seems to have been perfectly

proper.

It will hardly be credited that in spite of this utterance from the Bench, a Conservative leaflet was issued saying that the judge had "refused to interfere with a poster describing Mr. Ellis as a traitor, because of his being in communication with Kruger."

Under these circumstances was Ellis's fifth election fought. Struggling against such a torrent of calumny involved considerable strain, but he had loyal supporters, and at times there were scenes of enthusiasm at his meetings which foreshadowed the approaching victory. The weapon, too, forged by his enemies was two-edged, for calumnies exposed condemn the authors. His wife rendered devoted services during the contest. At the last meeting at Hucknall she made an appeal against the lowering of the word Patriot to one "who will not listen to any case of oppression, of suffering or of wrong in our colonies among our own people when martial law rules instead of the common law. . . . Let us never be afraid of the truth, never be afraid to do right. If our Statesmen do not see this let the electors see to it,-if so the majority to-morrow will show that at least in Rushcliffe patriotism is something deeper than a party cry."