V. VISIT OF TRANSVAAL DELEGATES TO
ENGLAND. THE LORD MAYOR'S REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THEM AT THE MANSION HOUSE. DR.
DALE'S LETTER TO MR. GLADSTONE. MR. MACKENZIE IN ENGLAND. MEETINGS AND
RESOLUTIONS ON TRANSVAAL MATTERS. MANIFESTO OF BOER DELEGATES. SPEECHES OF
W.E. FORSTER, LORD SHAFTESBURY, SIR FOWELL BUXTON, AND OTHERS. THE LONDON
CONVENTION (1884).
In 1883, two years after the
retrocession of the Transvaal, the Boers, encouraged by the hesitating
policy of the British Government, sent a deputation to London of a few of
their most astute statesmen, to put fresh claims before Mr. Gladstone, and
Lord Derby, then Colonial Minister. They did not ask the repeal of the
stipulations of the Convention of 1881 - that was hardly necessary, as these
stipulations had neither been observed by them nor enforced by our
Government, but what they desired and asked was the complete
re-establishment of the Republic, freed from any conditions of British
Suzerainty. This would have given them a free hand in dealing with the
natives, a power which those who knew them best were the least willing to
concede.
Sir R.N. Fowler was at that time
Lord Mayor of London. According to the custom when any distinguished
foreigners visit our Capital, of giving them a reception at the Mansion
House, these Transvaal delegates were presented for that honour. But the
door of the Mansion House was closed to them, and by a Quaker Lord Mayor,
renowned for his hospitality!
The explanation of this unusual act
is given in the biography of Sir R. Fowler, written by J.S. Flynn, (page
260.) The following extract from that biography was sent to the Friend, the
organ of the Society of Friends, in November, 1899, by Dr. Hodgkin, himself
a quaker, whose name is known in the literary world: - "The scene of Sir R.
Fowler's travels in 1881 was South Africa, where he went chiefly for the
purpose of ascertaining how he could best serve the interests of the native
inhabitants. He left no stone unturned in his search for information -
visiting Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of the Cape, Sir Theophilus
Shepstone, Sir Evelyn Wood, Colonel Mitchell, Bishops Colenso and Macrorie,
the Zulu King Cetewayo, the principal statesmen, the military, the newspaper
editors, the workers at the diamond-fields, and many others. The result of
his inquiries was to confirm his belief of the charges which were made
against the Transvaal Boers of wronging and oppressing the blacks.
"It was the opinion of many
philanthropists that the only way to insure good Government in the Transvaal
- justice to the natives, the suppression of slavery, the security of
neighbouring tribes - was by England's insisting on the Boer's observance of
the Treaty which had been made to this effect, and the delimitation of the
boundary of their territory in order to prevent aggression. With this object
in view meetings were held in the City, petitions presented by Members of
Parliament, resolutions moved in the House; and when at last it was
discovered that Mr. Gladstone's Government was unwilling to fulfil its
pledges in reference to South Africa, and that in consequence the native
inhabitants would not receive the support they had been led to expect,
considerable indignation was felt amongst the friends of the aborigines. The
demand which they made seems to have been moderate. The Transvaal, which
before the war, had been reckoned, for its protection, a portion of the
British dominions, was now made simply a State under British Suzerainty,
with a debt to England of about a quarter of a million (in lieu of the
English outlay during the three years of its annexation), and a covenant for
the protection of the 800,000 natives in the State, and the Zulu, Bechuana,
and Swazi tribes upon its borders. The English sympathisers with these
natives simply asked that the covenant should be adhered to. There was
little chance of the debt being paid, and that they were willing to forego;
but they maintained that honour and humanity demanded that the Boers should
not be allowed to treat their agreement with us as so much waste paper.
"The Prime Minister and the
Secretary of State for the Colonies received the Transvaal delegates
graciously, but the doors of the Mansion House were shut against them. Its
occupant at that time would neither receive them into his house nor bid them
God-speed. He had made a careful study of the South African question, and he
felt no doubt that this deputation represented a body of European settlers
who were depriving the natives of their land, slaying their men, and
enslaving their women and children. He desired to extend the hospitality of
the Mansion House to visitors from all countries, and to all creeds and
political parties; but the line must be drawn somewhere, and he would draw
it at the Boers. The boldness of his action on this occasion startled some
even of his friends. He was, of course, attacked by that portion of the
press which supported the Government. On the other hand, he had numerous
sympathisers. Approving letters and telegrams came from many quarters, one
telegram coming from the 'Loyalists of Kimberley' with 'hearty
congratulations.' As for his opponents, he was not in the least moved by
anything they said. He held it to be impossible for any respectable person
who knew the Boers to support them. This was no doubt strong language, but
it was not stronger than that of Moffat and Livingstone; not a whit stronger
either than that used by W.E. Forster, who had been a member of the
Gladstonian Government."
Dr. Hodgkin prefaced this extract by
the following lines, addressed to the Editor of the Friend:
"Dear Friend, - In re-perusing a few
days ago the life of my late brother-in-law, Sir R.N. Fowler, I came upon
the enclosed passage, which I think worthy of our consideration at the
present time.
Of late years the disputes between
our Government and the African Republic have turned so entirely on questions
connected with the status of the settlers in and around Johannesburg, that
we may easily forget the old subjects of dispute which existed for a
generation before it was known that there were any workable goldfields in
South Africa, and before the word "Uitlander" had been mentioned amongst us.
I must confess that for my part I had forgotten this incident of Sir R.N.
Fowler's Mayoralty, and I think it may interest some of your readers to be
reminded of it at the present time. I am, thine truly, - THOMAS HODGKIN.
Barmoor, Northumberland."
* * * * *
The late Dr. Dale, of Birmingham,
was one of those whose minds were painfully exercised on the matter of the
abandonment of the natives of the Transvaal to the Boers. An extract from
his life was sent in February this year to the Spectator, with the following
preface: -
"Sir, - I have been greatly
impressed by the justice of much that has been said in the Spectator on the
fact that the present war is a retribution for our indifference and apathy
in 1881. We failed in our duty then. We have taken it up now, but at what a
cost! In reading lately the life of Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, I was struck by
his remarks (pp. 438 and 439) on the Convention of Pretoria. These remarks
have such a bearing on the present situation that I beg you will allow me to
quote them:" -
"In relation to South African
affairs he (Dr. Dale) felt silence to be impossible. He had welcomed the
policy initiated by the Convention of Pretoria (1881) conceding independence
to the Transvaal, but imposing on the Imperial Government responsibility for
the protection of native races within and beyond the frontiers. In
correspondence with members of the House of Commons and in more than one
public utterance, he expressed his satisfaction that the freedom of the
Boers did not involve the slavery of the natives. At first the outlook was
hopeful, but the Boers soon began to chafe against the restrictions to which
they were subjected.... The Rev. John Mackenzie brought a lamentable record
of outrage and cruelty.... Dr. Dale particularly urged that the Government
should insist on carrying out the 18th article of the Convention of
Pretoria. 'The policy of the Government seemed to me both righteous and
expedient, singularly courageous and singularly Christian. But that policy
included two distinct elements. It restored to the Boers internal
independence, it reserved to the British Government powers for the
protection of native races on the Transvaal frontier. It is not unreasonable
for those who in the face of great obloquy supported the Government in
recognising the independence of the Transvaal, to ask that it should also
use its treaty powers, and use them effectively for the protection of the
natives.' To this statement the Pall Mall (John Morley) replied that the
suzerainty over the Transvaal maintained by us was a 'shadowy term,' and
that those who demanded that our reserved rights should be enforced were
bound to face the question whether they were willing to fight to enforce
them. Was Dr. Dale ready to run the risk of a fresh war in South Africa? Dr.
Dale replied, should the British Government and British people regard with
indifference the outrages of the Boers against tribes that we had undertaken
to protect?... 'If the Government of the Republic cannot prevent such crimes
as are declared to have been committed in the Bechuana country, and if we
are indifferent to them, we shall have the South African tribes in a blaze
again before many years are over, and for the safety of our Colonists we
shall be compelled to interfere.' In the ensuing Session the Ministerial
policy was challenged in both Houses of Parliament, and in the Commons Mr.
Forster indicted the Government for its impotence to hold the Transvaal
Republic to its engagements. Dr. Dale wrote a long letter to Mr. Gladstone:
- 'If it had been said that power to protect the natives should be taken but
not used, it is at least possible that a section of the party might have
declined to approve the Ministerial policy.... The one point to which I
venture to direct attention is the contrast, as it appears to me, between
the declaration of Ministers in '81, in relation to the native races
generally, and the position which has been taken in the present debate.' Mr.
Gladstone's reply was courteous, but not reassuring."
* * * * *
Mr. Mackenzie, British Commissioner
for Bechuanaland, came to England in 1882. In the following year the
Delegates from the Transvaal came to London, and in 1884 the Convention was
signed, which was called the "London Convention."
These years included events of great
interest. Mr. Mackenzie wrote: - "On my way to England I met a friend who
had just landed in South Africa from England. He warned me 'If you say a
good word for South Africa, Mr. Mackenzie, you will get yourself insulted.
They will not hear a word on its behalf in England; they are so disgusted
with the mess that has been made.'
'They had good reason to be
disgusted, but I want all the same to tell them a number of things about the
true condition of the country.'
'They will not listen,' my friend
declared, 'They will only swear at you.' This was not very encouraging, but
it was not far from the truth as to the public feeling at that time.
Being in the - - counties of
England I was offered an introduction to the Editor of a well-known
newspaper, who was also a pungent writer on social questions under a nom de
plume which had got to be so well known as no longer to serve the purpose of
the writer's concealment of identity.
'You come from South Africa, do
you,' said the great man; 'a place where we have had much trouble, but mean
to have no more.'
'Trouble, however,' I answered, 'is
inseparable from Empire. Whoever governs South Africa must meet with some
trouble and difficulty, although not much when honestly faced.'
'I assure you,' he broke in, 'we are
not going to try it again after the one fashion or the other. We are out of
it, and we mean to remain so.'
'You astonish me,' I answered; 'what
about the Convention recently signed at Pretoria (1881)? What about the
speeches still more recently made in this country in support of it?'
'As to the Convention, I know we
signed something; people often do when they are getting out of a nasty
business. We never meant to keep it, nor shall we.'
I believe I whistled a low whistle
just to let off the steam, and then replied calmly, 'Will you allow me to
say that by your own showing you are a bad lot, a very bad lot, as
politicians.'
'That may be, but it does not alter
the fact, which is as I state.'
'Well, I am an outsider, but I
assure you that the English people, should they ever know the facts, will
agree with me in saying that you are a bad lot. Such doctrines in commerce
would ruin us in a day. You know that.'
'The people are with us. They are
disgusted and heart-sore with the whole business.'
'I grant you that such is their
frame of mind, but I think their attitude will be different when they come
to consider the facts, and face the responsibilities of our position in
South Africa. The only difficulty with me is to communicate the truth to the
public mind.'
I was much impressed by this
interview. Did this influential editor represent a large number of English
people? Were they in their own minds out of South Africa, and resolved never
to return?
... 'I do not know what you think,
Mr. Mackenzie, but we are all saying here that Mr. Gladstone made a great
mistake in not recalling Sir Bartle Frere at once. In fact, we are of
opinion that Frere should have been tried and hanged.'
The speaker was a fine specimen of
an Englishman, tall, with a good head, intelligent and able as well as
strong in speech. He was a large manufacturer, and a local magnate. His wife
was little and gentle, and yet quite fearless of her grim-looking lord. She
begged that I would always make a deduction when her husband referred to
South Africa. He could never keep his temper on that subject, My host
abruptly demanded, 'But don't you think that Frere should have been hanged?'
'My dear, you will frighten Mr.
Mackenzie with your vehemence, and you know you do not mean it a bit.'
'Mean it! Isn't it what everybody is
saying here? At any rate I have given Mr. Mackenzie a text, and he must now
give me his discourse.'
I then proceeded to sketch out the
work which Sir Bartle Frere had had before him, its fatal element of haste,
with its calamitous failures in no way chargeable to him. 'In short, I
concluded, but for the grave blunders of others you would have canonized Sir
Bartle Frere instead of speaking of him as you do. He is the ablest man you
ever sent to South Africa. As to his personal character, I do not know a
finer or manlier Christian.' ...
'I am quite bewildered,' said my
host, at the end of a long conversation. 'I know more of South Africa than I
knew before. But we shall not believe you unless you pitch into someone. You
have not done that yet; you have only explained past history, and have had a
good word for everybody.'
'Then, Sir,' I quickly answered, 'I
pitch into you, and into your Governments, one after another, for not
mastering the facts of South African life. Why do you now refuse to protect
your own highway into the Interior, and at the same time conserve the work
of the missionaries whom you have supported for two generations, and thus
put an end to the freebooting of the Boers, and of our own people who joined
them? At present there is a disarmed coloured population, disarmed by your
own laws on account only of their colour; and there is an armed population,
armed under your laws, because they are white; and you decline to interfere
in any way for the protection of the former. You will neither protect the
natives nor give them fair play and an open field, so that they may protect
themselves.'
'Now, my dear,' said the little
wife, 'I wonder who deserves to be hanged now? I am sure we are obliged to
Mr. Mackenzie for giving us a clear view of things.'
'No, no, you are always too hasty,'
said my host, quite gravely. 'The thing gets very serious. Do I rightly
understand you, Mr. Mackenzie, that practically we Englishmen arm those
freebooters (from the Transvaal,) and practically keep the blacks disarmed,
and that when the blacks have called on us for protection and have offered
themselves and their country to the Queen we have paid no heed? Is this
true?'
'Every word true,' I replied.
'Then may I ask, did you not fight
for these people? You had surely got a rifle,' said my host, turning right
round on me.
'My dear, you forget Mr. Mackenzie
has been a Missionary,' said his wife. 'You yourself, as a Director of the
London Missionary Society, would have had him cashiered if he had done
anything of the kind.'
'Nonsense, you don't see the thing.
I assure you I could not have endured such meanness and injustice. I should
have broken such confounded laws. I should have shouldered a rifle, I know,'
said the indignant man as he paced his room.
'My dear, you would have got shot,
you know,' said his wife.
'Shot! yes, certainty, why not?'
said my host; and added gravely, 'A fellow would know why he was shot. Is it
true, Mr. Mackenzie, that those blacks were kind to our people who fled to
them from the Transvaal, and that they there protected them?'
'Quite true,' I rejoined.
'Then by heaven,' said Mr. - - ,
raising his voice -
'Let us go to supper,' broke in the
gentle wife, 'you are only wearying Mr. Mackenzie by your constant wishes to
hang some one.'
"I trust my friends will forgive me
for recalling this conversation, which vividly pictures the state of
people's mind concerning South Africa in 1882. I found that most people were
incredulous as to the facts being known at the Colonial Office, and there
was a uniform persuasion that Mr. Gladstone was ignorant that such things
were going on."
I have given these interviews (much
abridged) because they illustrate in a rather humourous way a state of mind
which unhappily has long existed and exists to some degree to this day in
England - an impatience of responsibility for anything concerning interests
lying beyond the shores of our own Island, a certain superciliousness, and a
habit of expressing and adhering to suddenly formed and violent opinions
without sufficient study of the matters in question, - such opinions being
often influenced by the bias of party politics. Our countrymen are now
waking up to a graver and deeper consideration of the tremendous interests
at stake in our Colonies and Dependencies, and to a greater readiness to
accept responsibilities which once undertaken it is cowardice to reject or
even to complain of.
At the request of the London
Missionary Society, Mr. Mackenzie drew up an extended account of the
Bechuanaland question, which had a wide circulation. He did not enter into
party politics, but merely gave evidence as to matters of fact. There was
surprise and indignation expressed wherever the matter was carefully studied
and understood. Many resolutions were transmitted to the Colonial Secretary
from public meetings; one which came from a meeting in the Town Hall of
Birmingham was as, follows: -
"This meeting earnestly trusts that
the British Government will firmly discharge the responsibilities which they
have undertaken in protection of the native races on the Transvaal border."
Among the people who took up warmly
the cause of the South African natives were Dr. Conder, Mr. Baines, and Mr.
Yates of Leeds (who addressed themselves directly to Mr. Gladstone), Dr.
Campbell and Dr. Duff of Edinburgh, the Rev. Arnold Thomas and Mr. Chorlton
of Bristol, Mr. Howard of Ashton-under-Lyne, Mr. Thomas Rigby of Chester,
and others.
A Resolution was sent to the
Colonial Office by the Secretary of the Congregational Union of England and
Wales, which had been passed unanimously at a meeting of that body in
Bristol: -
"That the Assembly of the
Congregational Union, recognising with devout thankfulness the precious and
substantial results of the labours of two generations of Congregational
Christian Missionaries in Bechuanaland, learns with grief and alarm that the
lawless incursions of certain Boers from the Transvaal threaten the utter
ruin of peace, civilization, and Christianity in that land. This Assembly
therefore respectfully and most urgently entreats Her Majesty's Government,
in accordance with the express provision of the Convention by which
Self-Government was granted to the Boers, to take such steps as shall
eventually put a stop to a state of things as inconsistent with the pledged
word of England as with the progress of the Bechuanaland nations." Signed at
Bristol, Oct. 1882.
"These," says Mr. Mackenzie, "were
not words of war, but of peace; they were not the words of enemies, but of
friends of the Transvaal, many of whom had been prominent previously in
agitating for the Boers getting back their independence. They felt that this
was the just complement of that action; the Boers were to have freedom
within the Transvaal, but not licence to turn Bechuanaland (and other
neighbouring native states) into a pandemonium."
There was a closer contact in
Edinburgh with South Africa than elsewhere, owing to the constant presence
at that University of a large number of students from South Africa. A public
meeting was held in Edinburgh, among the speakers whereat were Bishop
Cotterill, who had lived many years in South Africa; Mr. Gifford, who had
been a long time in Natal; Professor Calderwood, and Dr. Blaikie, biographer
of Dr. Livingstone. The Venerable Mr. Cullen, the first missionary traveller
in Bechuanaland, who had often entertained Dr. Moffat and Dr. Livingstone in
his house, was present to express his interest in that country. There were
the kindest expressions used towards our Dutch fellow-subjects; but grave
condemnation was expressed of the Transvaal policy towards the coloured
people in making it a fundamental law that they were not to be equal to the
whites either in Church or State.
A South African Committee was formed
in London from which a largely supported address was presented to Mr.
Gladstone.
The High Commissioner for
Bechuanaland gave his impressions at several different times during that and
the preceding year on the subject of the constant illegal passing of the
Western Boundary line of the Transvaal by the Boers. Readers will remember
that the delimitation of the western boundary of the Transvaal was a fixed
condition of the Convention of 1881, a Convention which was continually
violated by the Boers. No rest was permitted for the poor natives of the
different tribes on that side, the Boers' land-hunger continuing to be one
of their strongest passions. The High Commissioner wrote, "If Montsioa and
Mankoroane were now absorbed, Banokwani, Makobi and Bareki would soon share
the same fate. Haseitsiwe and Sechele would come next. So long as there were
native cattle to be stolen and native lands to be taken possession of, the
absorbing process would be repeated. Tribe after tribe would be pushed back
and back upon other tribes or would perish in the process until an
uninhabitable desert or the sea were reached as the ultimate boundary of the
Transvaal State."[16]
The Manifesto presented by the
Transvaal delegates to the English people convinced no one, and its tone was
calculated rather to beget suspicion. The following is an extract from that
document:
"The horrible misdeeds committed by
Spain in America, by the Dutch in the Indian Archipelago, by England in
India, and by the Southern planters in the United States, constitute an
humiliating portion of the history of mankind, over which we as Christians
may well blush, confessing with a contrite heart our common guiltiness."
"The labours of the Anti-slavery and
Protection of Aborigines Societies which have been the means of arousing the
public conscience to the high importance of this matter cannot be, according
to our opinion, sufficiently lauded and encouraged."
The manifesto then goes on to meet
the charges concerning slavery and ill-treatment of natives brought against
the Transvaal by a flat denial. "They may be true," they say, "as to actions
done long ago, and they humbly pray to the Lord God to forgive them the sins
that may have been committed in hidden corners. Believe us, therefore,
Gentlemen, when we say that the opposition to our Government is caused by
prejudice, and fed by misunderstanding. If you leave us untrammelled, we
hope to God that before a new generation has passed, a considerable portion
of our natives in the Transvaal will be converted to Christianity; at least
our Government is preparing arrangements for a more thorough Christian
mission among them."
A public Meeting was held at the
Mansion House, called by the Lord Mayor, Sir R. Fowler, at which the Right
Hon. W.E. Forster, referring to the Sand River and the other Conventions
said: "can anything be more grossly unfair and unjust than on the one hand,
to hand over these native people to the Transvaal Government, and on the
other hand to do our utmost to prevent them from defending themselves when
their rights are attacked? I cannot conceive any provision more contrary to
that principle of which we are so proud - British fair play."
Speaking of the treatment of the
Bechuanaland people by the Boers he said: "The story of these men is a very
sad one; I would rather never allude to it again." He then referred to "the
settlement of the western boundary of the Transvaal by Governor Keate, and
the immediate repudiation of it by the Transvaal Rulers. Then came the
Pretoria Convention only two years ago which added a large block of native
land to the Transvaal. That was not enough. Freebooters came over, mostly
from the Transvaal, and afterwards from other parts of the country.
Representations and remonstrances were made to the Transvaal Government.
There was a non possumus reply. 'We cannot stop them;' We seem to have good
ground for believing that the freebooters were stimulated by the officers of
the Transvaal Government. The result was that the native Chiefs of the
people lost by far the larger portion of their land. They appealed to our
Government, and we did nothing; there came again and again despairing
appeals to England, and how were they met? I can only believe it was through
ignorance of the question that it was possible to meet them as we did. It
was proposed to meet them by a miserable compensation in money or in land,
not to the people but to the few Chiefs, who to their credit, as a lesson to
us, a great Christian Country said: 'We will not desert our people even if
you desert us.' Then there followed utter disorder and disorganisation in
Bechuanaland. Then came in the Transvaal Government and virtually said:
'Give us the country and we will maintain order; if owners of the land
object we will put them down as rebels; we will take their land as we have
taken Mapoch's, and apprentice their children. You have got tired of these
quarrels, leave them to us; we will put a stop to them by protecting the
robbers who have taken the land.'
"That practically is the demand. Are
you prepared to grant it? I for my part say, that rather than grant it I
would (a voice in the meeting - 'fight!') yes, if necessary, fight; but I
will do my utmost to persuade my fellow countrymen to make the declaration
that, if necessary, force will be used, which, if it was believed in, would
make it unnecessary to fight.
"The Transvaal Boers know our power,
and the Delegates know our power. It is our will that they doubt. If I could
not persuade my fellow countrymen that they meant to show that they would
never grant such demands as these, I would rather do - what I should
otherwise oppose with all my might, - withdraw from South Africa altogether.
I am not so proud of our extended Empire as to wish to preserve it at the
cost of England refusing to discharge her duties. If we have obligations we
must meet them, and if we have duties we must fulfil them; and I have
confidence in the English people that first or last they will make our
Government fulfil its obligations. But there is much difference between
first and last; last is much more difficult than first, and more costly than
first. The cost increases with more than geometrical progression. There are
people who say, (but the British nation will not say it;) 'leave us alone,
let these Colonists and Boers and Natives whom we are tired of, fight it out
as best they can; let us declare by our deeds, or rather by our non deeds
that we will not keep our promise nor fulfil our duty.' Such a course as
that would be as extravagantly costly as it would be shamefully wrong. This
laissez faire policy tends to make things go from bad to worse until at last
by a great and most costly effort, and perhaps by a really bloody and
destructive war, we shall be obliged to do in the end at a greater cost, and
in a worse way, that which we could do now. It is not impossible to do it
now. A gentleman in the meeting said it was a question of fighting. I do not
believe this; but though born a Quaker, I must admit that if there be no
other way by which we can protect our allies and prevent the ungrateful
desertion of those who helped us in the time of need, than by the exercise
of force, I say force must be exercised."
Readers will remark how
extraordinarily prophetic are these words of Mr. Forster, spoken in 1883.
The "venerable and beloved Lord
Shaftesbury," as Mr. Mackenzie calls him, spoke as follows: -
"This morning has been put into my
hands the reply of the Transvaal delegates to the Aborigines Protection
Society. I read it with a certain amount of astonishment and of comfort too,
- of astonishment that men should be found possessing such a depth of
Christianity, such sentiments of religion, such love for veracity, and such
regard for the human race as to put on record and to sign with their own
hands such a denial of the atrocities and cruelties which have been recorded
against them for so many years. It is most blessed to contemplate the depth
of their religious sentiments; they express the love they bear to our Lord
and Saviour, and their desire to walk in His steps. All this is very
beautiful, and, if true, is the greatest comfort ever given us concerning
the native races. I will take that document as a promise for the future that
they will act upon these principles, that they are Christians, and that they
will act on Christian principles, and respect the rights of the natives.
That is perhaps the most generous view to take of the matter; but,
nevertheless, we shall be inclined to doubt until we see that they have put
these principles into practice.
"Let me come to the laws of the
Transvaal. It is a fundamental law of that State that there can be no
equality either in Church or in State between white and coloured men. No
native is allowed to hold land in the Transvaal with such a fundamental law.
It is nothing more than a necessary transition to the conclusion that the
coloured people should be contemned as being of an inferior order, and only
fit for slavery. That is a necessary transition, and it is for Englishmen to
protest against it, and to say that all men, of whatever creed, or race, or
colour, are equal in Church and State, and in the sight of God, and to
assert the principle of Civil and Religious Liberty whenever they have the
opportunity. I have my fears at times of the consequences of democratic
action; but I shall never feel afraid of appealing to the British democracy
on a question of Civil and Religious liberty. That strikes a chord that is
very deep and dear to every Briton everywhere. They believe, - and their
history shows that they act upon the belief, - that the greatest blessing
here below that can be given to intellectual and moral beings is the gift of
Civil and Religious liberty. Sensible of the responsibility we have assumed,
we appeal to the British public, and I have no doubt what the answer will
be. It will be that by God's blessing, and so far as in us lies, Civil and
Religious liberty shall prevail among all the tribes of South Africa, to the
end that they may become civilized nations, vying with us in the exercise of
the gifts that God has bestowed upon us."
Sir Henry Barkly, who had held the
office of Governor of the Cape Colony, and of High Commissioner for a number
of years, said: -
"Apart from other considerations, it
is essential in the interests of civilization and of commerce that the route
to the interior of the Dark Continent should be kept in our hands. It has
been through the stations planted by our missionaries all along it, as far
as Matabeleland, that the influence of the Gospel has been spread among the
natives, and that the way has been made safe and easy for the traveller and
the trader. Can we suppose that these stations can be maintained if we
suffer the road to fall within the limits of the Transvaal? We need not
recall our melancholy experience of the past in this region. I would rather
refer to the case of the Paris Evangelical Society, whose missionaries were
refused leave only a short time ago to teach or preach to the Basuto-speaking
population within the Transvaal territory."
The Hon. K. Southey said: -
"I concur entirely with what has
been said by the Right Hon. Mr. Forster with regard to slavery. It must be
admitted that the institution does not exist in name; but in reality
something very closely allied to it exists, for in that country there is no
freedom for the coloured races. The road to the interior must be kept open,
not only for the purposes of trade, but also as a way by which the Gospel
may be carried from here to the vast regions beyond Her Majesty's
possessions in that part of the world. If we allow the Transvaal State to
annex a territory through which the roads to the interior pass, not only
will there be difficulties put in the way of our traders, but the missionary
also will find it no easy task to obey the injunction to carry the Gospel
into all lands, and to preach it to all peoples."
Sir Fowell Buxton presented the
following thought, which might with advantage be taken to heart at the
present time: -
"We know how in the United States
they have lately been celebrating the events that recall the time a century
ago of the declaration of their independence. I will ask you to consider
what would have been the best advice that we could have given at that time
to the Government at Washington? Do we not know that in regard to all that
relates to the well-being of the country, to mere matters of wealth and
property, the best advice to have given them would have been, to deliver
their country at once from all connection with slavery in the days when they
formed her constitution."
* * * * *
Sir William M'Arthur, M.P., said: -
"I have never seen in the Mansion
House a larger or more enthusiastic meeting, and I believe that the feeling
which animates this meeting is animating the whole country. Any course of
action taken by Her Majesty's Ministers towards the Transvaal will be very
closely watched. I myself am for peace, but I am also for that which
maintains peace, viz., a firm and decided policy."
* * * * *
The poor Chief, Mankoroane, having
heard that the Transvaal Delegates would discuss questions of vital
importance to his people, left Bechuanaland and went as far as Cape Town on
his way to England to represent his case there. Lord Derby, however, sent
him word that he could not be admitted to the Conference in London, where
the ownership of his own country was to be discussed. Mankoroane then begged
Mr. Mackenzie to be his representative, but was again told that neither
personally nor by representative could he be recognised at the Conference in
Downing Street, but that any remarks which Mr. Mackenzie might make on his
behalf would receive the attention of Government. (Blue Book 3841, 92.)
The first and great question which
the Transvaal Delegates desired to settle in their own interests was that of
the Western boundary line, amended by themselves, which was represented on a
map. They were informed that their amended treaty was "neither in form nor
in substance such as Her Majesty's Government could adopt," there being
"certain Chiefs who had objected, on behalf of their people, to be included
in the Transvaal, and there being a strong feeling in London in favour of
the independence of these natives, or (if they, the natives, desired it) of
their coming under British rule." There was now brought before the delegates
a map showing the addition of land which was eventually granted to the
Transvaal, but the delegates would not agree to any such arrangement. Her
Majesty's Government were giving away to them some 2,600 square miles of
native territory, concerning which there was no clear evidence that its
owners wished to be joined to the Transvaal. But this was nothing to the
Transvaal demand, as shown by a map which they put in, and which included an
additional block of 4,000 square miles. Not finding agreement with the
Government possible, the delegates then turned from that position, and took
up the question of the remission of the debt which the Transvaal owed to
England, saying that the wishes of the native chiefs should be consulted
first about the boundary line. This was a bold stroke; they were professing
to be representing the interests of certain chiefs, which was not the case.
Lord Derby telegraphed to the Cape
on the 27th of Feb. 1884, the result of the protracted labours of the
Conference at Downing Street, mentioning: - "British Protectorate
established outside the Transvaal, with Delegates' consent. Debt reduced to
quarter of a million."[17] To many persons it seems that the Convention of
1884, rather than the Convention of 1881, was the real blunder. It is
remarkable, however, as illustrating the small attention which South African
affairs then received, that no party controversy was aroused over this later
instrument. Very soon afterwards, however, the question became acute, owing
to the action of Mr. Kruger; and then, it must be remembered, that Mr.
Gladstone did not hesitate to appeal to the armed strength of the Empire in
order to defend British interests and prevent the extension of Boer rule.
That there was not war in 1884 was due only to the fact that Mr. Kruger at
that time did not choose to fight. The raiders and filibusters were put down
before by Sir Charles Warren's force, but Mr. Gladstone had taken every
precaution in view of the contingency of a collision.
The conditions laid down in the
Convention did not satisfy the Delegates, although they formally assented to
them. Their disappointment began to be strongly manifested. They had stoutly
denied that slavery existed in their country. This denial was challenged by
the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society, who brought forward some
very awkward testimonies and facts of recent date. It was suggested that
President Kruger should for ever silence the calumniators by demanding a
Commission of enquiry on this subject which would take evidence within and
round the Transvaal as they might see fit. The Delegates took good care not
to accept this challenge. The firmness of the British Government at that
moment was fully justified by the actual facts of the case which came so
strikingly before them, and their attitude was supported by public opinion,
so far as this public opinion in England then existed. It was the Transvaal
deputation itself which had most effectually developed it when they first
arrived in London, though it was known they had many friends, and that
numbers of the public were generally quite willing to consider their
claims.[18] They sat for three months in conference with members of Her
Majesty's Government before coming to any decision. That decision was known
as the London Convention of 1884.
The displeasure of the Boer
Delegates matured after their return to the Transvaal, and was expressed in
a message sent by the Volksraad to our Government not many months after the
signing of the Convention in London.
In this document the Boers seem to
regard themselves as a victorious people making terms with those they had
conquered. It is interesting to note the articles of the Convention to which
they particularly object. In the telegram which was sent to "His Excellency,
W.E. Gladstone," the Volksraad stated that the London Convention was not
acceptable to them. They declared that "modifications were desirable, and
that certain articles must be altered." They attached importance to the
Native question, declaring that "the Suzerain (Great Britain) has not the
right to interfere with their Legislature, and that they cannot agree to
article 3, which gives the Suzerain a voice concerning Native affairs, nor
to article 13, by virtue of which Natives are to be allowed to acquire land,
nor to that part of Article 26, by which it is provided that white men of a
foreign race living in the Transvaal shall not be taxed in excess of the
taxes imposed on Transvaal citizens."
It should be observed here that this
reference to unequal and excessive taxation of foreigners in the Transvaal,
pointing to a tendency on the part of the Boers to load foreigners with
unjust taxation, was made before the development of the goldfields and the
great influx of Uitlanders.
The Message of the Volksraad was
finally summed up in the following words: "we object to the following
articles, 15, 16, 26, and 27, because to insist on them is hurtful to our
sense of honour." (sic.)
Now what are the articles to which
the Boer Government here objects, and has continued to object?
Article 15 enacts that no slavery or
apprenticeship shall be tolerated.
Article 16 provides for religious
toleration (for Natives and all alike.)
Article 26 provides for the free
movement, trading, and residence of all persons, other than natives,
conforming themselves to the laws of the Transvaal.
Article 27 gives to all, (Natives
included,) the right of free access to the Courts of Justice.
Putting the "sense of honour" of the
Transvaal Volksraad out of the question, past experience had but too plainly
proved that these Articles were by no means superfluous.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 16: "Austral Africa,
Ruling it or Losing it," p. 157.]
[Footnote 17: When the Transvaal was annexed, in 1877, the public debt of
that country amounted to £301,727. "Under British rule this debt was
liquidated to the extent of £150,000, but the total was brought up by a
Parliamentary grant, a loan from the Standard Bank, and sundries to
£390,404, which represented the public debt of the Transvaal on the 31st
December, 1880. This was further increased by monies advanced by the
Standard Bank and English Exchequer during the war, and till the 8th August,
1881, (during which time the country yielded no revenue,) to £457,393. To
this must be added an estimated sum of £200,000 for compensation charges,
pension allowances, &c., and a further sum of £383,000, the cost of the
successful expedition against Secocoemi, that of the unsuccessful one being
left out of account, bringing up the total public debt to over a million, of
which about £800,000 was owing to this country. This sum the Commissioners
(Sir Evelyn Wood dissenting) reduced by a stroke of the pen to £265,000,
thus entirely remitting an approximate sum of £500,000 or £600,000. To the
sum of £265,000 still owing must be added say another £150,000 for sums
lately advanced to pay the compensation claims, bringing up the actual
amount owing to England to about a quarter of a million." - Report of
Assistant Secretary to the British Agent for Native Affairs. (Blue Book
3917, 46.)]
[Footnote 18: "Austral Africa." Mackenzie.]
