=Source.=--_The Times_, January 17.
We give this morning an account from our correspondent at Pretoria
of the meeting held by the Boers last month for the purpose of
protesting against the annexation of the Transvaal. The report of
the proceedings leaves no doubt of the extent and nature of Boer
disaffection.... That the annexation of the Transvaal may have been
necessary when the step was taken may be admitted without prejudice
to the question whether its permanent occupation and administration
by British authority is desirable or not. When Sir Theophilus
Shepstone annexed the territory, the Government was disorganized,
the Treasury was bankrupt, the Republican troops were hopelessly
demoralized, and the whole district was threatened by two powerful
native chiefs, the weaker of whom had proved his superiority to
any force which the Boers could bring against him. Now Cetywayo
and Secocoeni are captives, and the whole border is tranquil. We
have done for the Boers what it is certain they could not have
done for themselves, and we have placed the security of the South
African Colonies beyond all reasonable fear. Hence it might be
argued that the reasons which compelled the temporary annexation of
the Transvaal are no longer applicable in favour of its permanent
occupation. It may be argued that we cannot recede where we have
once advanced; certainly we cannot, where we have good reason to
believe that our security requires that we should maintain our
hold. But when our presence is manifestly unwelcome, and when the
question of the best mode of guarding our security in future is
at least an open one, it would be a very contemptible piece of
national vanity to refuse to recede, simply because we had once
found it necessary to advance in very different circumstances.