Politics and Personalities—A Dignified Assembly—Jackals and their
Tails—Political Meeting a "Howling" Success— The First Union
Parliament—Myself through Another's Eyes —The Flag Bill Debate—John Xavier
Merriman—Sir Starr Jameson—General Botha: A Great Leader—General the
Honourable J. B. M. Hertzog—General the Right Honourable J. C. Smuts, P.C.,
C.H., K.C., D.T.D.—Kimberley: My Home.
The old Cape House was a very dignified assembly. When I first entered
Parliament in 1897, Sir Henry Juta was Speaker. The role fitted him like the
proverbial glove. He was tall, handsome, dignified and learned, and for many
years previous had been a leading Counsel at the bar in the Cape Colony.
He
was at all times diplomatic and impartial, and as befits an ideal Speaker,
he was very definite in his rulings. His decisions were never questioned. He
ruled the House with silvery words, but withal he maintained a firmness that
brooked no questioning. When Juta had spoken, no member dared to bark.
Popular and respected by all parties alike, he was the member for Oudtshoorn.
A
curious "turn of the tide" took place during one of the pending elections.
Feeling it was somewhat infra dig tor a Speaker personally to canvass the
electors or address meetings, he decided to leave the conduct of his
election campaign to the tender mercies of his friends and a committee. It
was presumed that the result was a foregone conclusion, and, as often
happens, a policy of "do-nothing" was pursued. It was quite a mistaken idea,
and to the astonishment of both his political friends and opponents, he was
defeated by a very narrow majority. Had he addressed a few meetings, and not
taken things as a matter of course, he would, by his eloquence and
personality, assuredly have gained the seat by a thumping majority.
Dr. Bissett Berry succeeded Sir Henry Juta in the Chair. He, too, was a
charming man with great scholastic attainments, but he was not a patch on
his distinguished predecessor. When Sir Henry had lost his seat, Sir Gordon
Sprigg found himself on the horns of a dilemma. He " sounded'' me when
looking round for a new Speaker, and endeavoured to persuade me to indulge
in the fruits of office. Taken by surprise, I thanked him for the offer and
the confidence he reposed in me, but, as I told him, I was as much fitted to
occupy that position as I was to discharge the duties of the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
In
the old Cape House members received one guinea a day for attendance, and
those residing outside a boundary of thirty miles were allowed an additional
ten shillings and sixpence per diem. During a normal session, the maximum
number of days for which payment was received was ninety, but even if the
House sat longer than that period no "refresher" was granted. Usually at the
termination of the ninety days the House prorogued. It could not sit longer,
because it was almost impossible to keep a quorum beyond that period.
In
those far-off times members were more particular in their mode of dress than
they are to-day. They invariably attended in morning coats, with but very
few in ordinary jacket suits. The Dutch members were proud of their
position, and always added dignity to the occasion.
I
well recall a motion moved by one such member, who, anxious to secure
uniformity in dress, suggested that "members attending sittings of the House
should do so wearing black morning coats." Of course, nothing came of the
resolution, but it was, at any rate, evidence of the pardonable pride the
Dutch members took in their Parliament.
To-day things have changed. Members appear not the least concerned about
matters sartorial, and some attend in white suits, others after having
discarded their waistcoats. Why, a few years back red neckties were the
popular vogue among certain members. Lately, however, they have left them in
their wardrobes because they recognise they are not in keeping with the
policy they propounded before two Labour leaders found a place in the Pact
Ministry.
In
1898 the Cape Government decided to pay an amount of seven shillings and
sixpence for each jackal destroyed. It was freely admitted that they were a
serious menace to farmers, who complained that, through the depredations of
these roving animals, they were sustaining great losses in small stock. In
one year the Government paid over £30,000 for the destruction of these
animals, and it was consequently felt that there was something wrong "in the
State of Denmark." A Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the
matter, and after a thorough investigation it reported that the scheme was
being greatly abused. It appeared that farmers living within the borders of
the Transvaal and Free State, where there were no rewards, were handing the
tails of jackals to their friends who claimed the seven shillings and
sixpence offered from Cape Colony magistrates. This, of course, meant that
the Cape Government was paying for jackals being destroyed in the two
Republics.
When the report was presented to the House, it gave rise to a long debate. I
endeavoured to pour ridicule on the whole idea, and observed jokingly that
imitation jackal tails were being imported from Birmingham with the idea of
claiming compensation from the Government. I was also in facetious vein when
I remarked that many farmers were cutting off the tails of jackals and
allowing them to run again.
Mr. Hockly, a well-known farmer, who had been Chairman of Committees, and
was President of the Farmers' Association, took strong exception to my
remarks, and wound up his speech by saying, " My honourable friend the
member for Kimberley is, I admit, a great authority on diamond mining, but
he will excuse me for saying that he has a poor knowledge of farming if he
thinks that when you cut off the tail of a jackal it will grow again."
In
my reply, I admitted my ignorance of farming, but said that I knew full well
that if you cut off the tail of a jackal the tail will not grow again, but a
tailless jackal could produce another jackal with a seven shillings and
sixpenny tail!
The inquiry and debate eventually resulted in the reward being reduced to
two shillings and sixpence, and now the tail was ignored and the head was
required as evidence to ensure the reward.
In
1904 Sir Abe Bailey and I contested an election. It was the fight for the
seat at Barkly West, which then returned two members to the Cape Parliament
(the constituency was represented by Rhodes during the whole of his
political career). The alluvial river diggings formed portion of the area,
which constituted the largest in the Colony, so a great deal of travelling
was necessary, and the preparation of many speeches. Having addressed
meetings in three or four of the larger centres, we now decided to dispense
with the services of reporters. This move left us perfectly free to repeat,
if necessary, some of the speeches we had made at former meetings, without
being suspected by some of our hot-headed constituents of being unable to
tell them anything really new.
The heterogeneous assembly of diggers—keen students of politics, but no
respecters of persons —formed a body of very inquisitive voters, who
cultivated the habit of putting many awkward questions to travelling
candidates.
At
Longlands we met with a veritable bombardment from a phalanx of diggers. The
meeting was held at night in a small corrugated iron building, boasting of a
mud floor, and dimly lit by paraffin lamps and candles placed on tables. One
can imagine the intense heat in this closely packed building which, in
addition, was badly ventilated. The local butcher was voted chairman. He was
a man of small stature, with a face adorned by a scrubby beard. His
appearance might have been all the better had such a long interval not been
allowed to lapse since his last bath, if ever he had taken one. He had not
changed his clothes since he had left his shop, with the result that a
strong smell oozed from his person—an odour suggestive of doubtful sausages
and meat that should have been consumed in bygone days. Too much blame
however, should not be attached to his attire as the contents of the poor
fellow's wardrobe might possibly have been limited to the clothes he wore
that night—a shabby suit, a shirt, and quite conceivably no collars or
neckties. Well, he did his best, so one must overlook the shortcomings of
this village butcher.
By
the time Bailey and I had finished our oratory, perspiration, visible even
by the dim lights mentioned, was running down the faces of the audience,
while a much greater measure of discomfort was being suffered by those who
had rushed to gain early seats, and had thus elected to sit near the
chairman.
When question time arrived Bailey was the first "victim." He seemed to
satisfy his inquisitive audience, until one burly digger came forward. It
was now that a number of infuriated dogs seemed to take a hand in the
meeting, and they set up one continuous howl, which made it difficult to
hear one's own voice.
Some sort of order was eventually restored, and the now impatient questioner
recommenced his fusillade of queries regarding the importation of Chinese
labour to the Gold Mines of the Rand.
Digger: Are you in favour of importing Chinese into this country?
Candidate: This is a Transvaal question that has no bearing on Cape
politics. Digger: That won't do, Mr. Bailey. Please give a straightforward
answer to a straightforward man.
Candidate: I have already done so. What more can I say?
Digger: 'Ere, none of that quibbling, Mr. Bailey. Don't try to bluff me.
Candidate: I have done nothing of the sort. I have answered your question.
Digger: I'll be damned if you have. Now no more prevarication. Are you in
favour of Chinese immigration? I want a plain answer, "yes" or "no?"
At
this awkward moment, when Bailey was in a predicament, the dogs commenced to
bark, and a general uproar followed. The animals attacked each other
furiously, and before long the meeting was in a state of chaos. Dust from
the floor made the atmosphere unpleasant, and in a wild stampede tables were
overturned and the lamps put out, throwing the hall into darkness.
Scenting blood, some of the wild animals dashed to the chairman's table, and
there was a general scramble to leave the hall. In the pandemonium that now
held sway, politics were entirely forgotten, and some of the audience
probably wished that the Chinese labourers were already there to lend a
helping hand.
While the tumult was at its height, I spotted the owner of the hall, who was
also the proprietor of the adjacent hotel. He was persuaded to spend a
"fiver" in drinks in the interests of the candidates.
He
immediately grasped the situation. "Come on boys! You must be thirsty. Have
drinks with me!" he shouted. The invitation brooked no delay. As quick as
lightning the bar was over-crowded, and one of the first to head the rush
was the burly questioner, his mind having been hurriedly turned from
Chinamen to liquor.
Thus the meeting ended, thanks to the providential intervention of the dogs.
. . .
Bailey and I were returned by a big majority to represent Barkly West. This
enabled Dr. Jameson to become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony less than
nine years after the Jameson Raid. Who would have thought that possible?
The first Session of the Union Parliament under the new constitution was
held in the enlarged House of Assembly in Cape Town on the 31st October,
1910, His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn officiating at
the opening ceremony, which was a very brilliant affair. The Cabinet was
composed as follows:
| |
Prime Minister
and Minister of Agriculture |
Gen.
The Hon. Louis Botha |
| |
Minister of
Railways and Harbours |
The Hon. J.
W. Sauer. |
| |
Minister of
Mines, Defence and Interior |
Gen. The
Hon. J. C. Smuts K.C. |
| |
Minister of
Justice |
Gen. The
Hon. J. B. M. Hertzog. |
| |
Minister of
Education |
The Hon. F. S.
Malan. |
| |
Minister of
Finance |
The Hon. H.
C. Hull. |
| |
Minister of
Lands |
The Rt.
Hon. Abraham Fischer, P.C. |
| |
Minister of
Native Affairs |
The Hon.
Henry Burton, K.C. |
| |
Minister of
Commerce and Industries |
The Hon.
George Leuchars, C.M.G., D.S.O. |
| |
Minister of
Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs |
Sir David
P. de Villiers Graaff, Bart. |
| |
Minister
without Portfolio |
Senator The
Hon. C. O'Grady Gubbins. |
A
few days before Parliament assembled, the principal members of the party met
with the object of appointing a new Speaker; it was generally believed that
General Beyers would be chosen for this post as he had presided with great
ability and impartiality over the deliberations of the Transvaal Parliament.
Every English member of that Assembly bore testimony to his dignity and
scrupulous fairness. General Beyers was a very handsome man of splendid
physique, standing about six feet two inches, and well proportioned; he
would have graced the Chair of any elected Parliament. But it was not to be.
Mr. Merriman, whose sympathies were with the Cape Colony, and whose temper
was probably ruffled by not being appointed Prime Minister, having been
ousted by a Transvaaler, proposed James Molteno, a son of a former Prime
Minister of the Cape Colony in whose Cabinet Merriman had served. The
meeting feeling that Merriman was hurt and disappointed at being passed over
for Premier, chivalrously gave way, desiring to appease this powerful
debater and distinguished statesman, so, to the surprise of the large
majority of members, Beyers was shunted to make way for Molteno.
Beyers was subsequently appointed Commandant General of Union Forces, but he
must have been labouring under a sense of injustice regarding the
Speakership for he took a most prominent part in organising the Rebellion
and took the field against the Botha Government in 1914, when a large Union
force was actively engaged in German South-West Africa. If Beyers had been
appointed Speaker in 1914, I doubt if there would have been a rebellion. The
rebels were ultimately defeated by Botha, General de Wet was taken prisoner
and Beyers met his death while swimming across the Vaal River when being
pursued by Government forces, a sad chapter of South Africa's history which
might have been avoided.
The following flattering description of myself, written by a political
opponent, appeared in a South African journal in 1921. At the risk of being
considered immodest I have included it in my memoirs. My friend fell into an
error in stating that I was an opponent of women's franchise, as I am an
ardent supporter of that cause, and voted in its favour every time it came
before the House of Assembly. This can be verified on reference to Hansard.
The rest of my friend's remarks it is not for me to criticise.
The genial Member for Beaconsfield is not only a real good Politician, but
he is also one of that type of men that make a first-class soldier. Sir
David Harris received the honour of the C.M.G. and the V.D. for good work as
a warrior many years ago, and for the defence of Kimberley against the Boers
in 1899-1900 he was the recipient of the K.C.M.G. He is one of the class of
men who, although he has had honours bestowed upon him, is not of the
advertising sort. He is known as a most charitable man and does his good
works by stealth. In Kimberley where he has resided for over 50 years he is
most popular, especially among the workers of De Beers Company, of which
mighty concern he is to-day the brain-centre and great driving force. In
Parliament Sir David is a moderate politician and goes his own way if he
does not think that his party is correct. Being the representative of the
diamond industry in the House, he is often attacked by both Labourites and
Nationalists, a little unfairly sometimes, I think. But then he wants no
sympathy because he can always give as much as he gets.
Although the member for Beaconsfield does not speak very often, he gives you
good stuff when he does address the House, and he is one of the few members
of our present House of Assembly whom one can really report verbatim,
without it being necessary to sub-edit his speeches. A quiet, calm speaker
with a good voice and a pleasant accent, Sir David's speeches are generally
packed with good common sense and hard facts. Naturally his ideas on some
subjects are to our minds rather conservative, but he always strikes me as
meaning well to all men, and he certainly is not the "ogre" some people
paint him. He sits alongside Mr. Merriman, right on top of the back benches
on the Government side, and appears to me to be a great admirer of the
G.O.M. of our Parliament. He is probably the only man in our House who can
take liberties with Mr. Merriman, and I have often seen him tug at the coat
of the Member for Stellenbosch when that erudite gentleman makes some slip
of the tongue, a thing he often does nowadays. I think Sir David Harris
keeps Mr. Merriman on the rails. In any case the Right Honourable the Father
of the House does not seem to mind these tuggings at the coat tails by his
old crony at his side.
The Diamond King is certainly not a supporter of women's franchise, and he
can always be found among the stalwarts who oppose the bringing down of
women to man's level, as far as politics are concerned. However, in many
questions he is democratic, and it stands to his credit that for years
before the eight-hour day was introduced in any mine or in any Government
undertaking, De Beers Company's employees were working those hours. He has
always advocated fair treatment to his employees (he is the Chairman of
Jagersfontein Diamond Company, as well as being the leading Director of De
Beers), with the result that the De Beers employees are perhaps the best off
of any of the workers of South Africa.
There can be no doubt that it was Sir David Harris who saved Kimberley
during the Boer War. He practically planned all the fortifications and the
mines that guarded the town, and was the life and soul of the defence.
When Lord Plumer was a one-pip officer he was greatly assisted by Sir David,
who got together at great trouble and expense to himself a Regiment for
Rhodesia. This Regiment made Plumer's name, and was his first step towards
promotion. He has never forgotten the man who helped him up the first rung
of the ladder, and when Sir David visited the Curragh, in Ireland a few
years ago, Lord Plumer turned out all the forces with massed bands to meet
him, and made a good deal of the popular South African soldier.
Sir David Harris' pet hobbies seem to be racing, bowls and helping
distressed people. On the turf he is a popular owner who races to win, and
breeds a number of his own horses. As a philanthropist he is well known in
Kimberley, where many poor people speak of his good deeds. I think he is
rather tired of the political arena in which he sees much dust and little
palms. It is quite probable that he will not seek re-election again. If he
does not, he will be missed in the House, for he is a sage Counsellor. He
has probably been returned unopposed to Parliament more times than any other
member. Taking him all in all he is not a bad type of Capitalist.
During my long membership of the House of Assembly, I made many
speeches—good, bad and indifferent, but as they were mostly bad, I do not
intend inflicting on my readers more than one, and my only reason for doing
even that much is to indicate the state of feeling which at the time existed
over that vexed and race-stirring question, the Flag Bill.
Dr. Malan, Minister of the Interior, was the sponsor of the measure. An
eloquent speaker, he was formerly Minister of the Gospel of the Dutch
Reformed Church, and descended from the pulpit to enter the lower arena of
politics. From such a source one expected to hear a speech couched in
soothing and moderate language, but to the surprise of many his was quite
the reverse.
Dr. Malan, in the course of a studied analysis of the measure, created at
the outset an atmosphere of hostility among the English members of the House
(excepting those Labourites having seats in the Cabinet) by not disguising
his attitude towards England. His utter disregard for the feelings of those
who hail from the Motherland was contained in one particular sentence, which
is indelibly impressed on my mind. He said, in effect, that the Union's
assent to a display on certain occasions of the flag of the Empire was a
concession worth something to English-speaking South Africans.
Concession forsooth! What an affront to the intelligence of British-born
subjects! Needless to say, the Bill gave rise to much excitement and
agitation throughout the country, especially in Natal, so much so that the
measure was left in abeyance for the subsequent session of Parliament when a
compromise was effected, and an ugly situation, which might possibly have
ended in bloodshed, was narrowly averted.
During the course of this contentious debate, on the 27th of May, 1927, I
said:
There were so many interjections during this debate that I think the
speakers should be allowed five minutes over the allotted time, in order to
make up for the time lost by interruptions. If the question before the House
could be sent to a laboratory and were capable of analysis, it would be
shown that the Dutch of the Free State and the Transvaal have a real love
for the Vierkleur, but the representatives in the House, to my mind, have
such a bitter and intense hatred for the Union Jack, that they are
determined to eliminate both the Vierkleur and the Union Jack from the
National Flag of the Union, without the slightest regard for the feelings of
the English-speaking section of the country. Now, English money is quite
good enough to build our railways, our irrigation works, and for the
development of the Union; English markets are quite welcome to purchase our
produce, and the British Navy would be received with open arms in certain
events, not only to protect our shores, but to safeguard our trade routes,
but hon. members opposite say: "Away with the British Flag, we will have
none of it." In face of that, we on this side of the House, are accused of
racialism.
When the South Africa Act was passed and the Union of the four provinces was
effected, the general opinion throughout the country was that racialism
would be a thing of the past, never to raise its head again. But our hopes
have been dashed to pieces. Since Union we have had the two-stream policy.
When that subsided, and feeling had cooled down, the secession movement was
inaugurated. Then came the Great War, and the open sympathy of hon. members
opposite was expressed for Germany and the enemies of the Empire, and that
attitude, I am sorry to say, was supported by the Labour Members then in the
House. It was very painful to me, as an Englishman, that members of this
Parliament, born under the British Flag, were in sympathy with the enemies
of England. It was mortifying that some of my own countrymen were also in
sympathy with the expressions that fell from the Nationalists on that
subject. Now we have the Flag Bill. There has been a periodical stirring up
of English feeling. Before one irritating question subsided another equally
disturbing subject was foisted on the country. During the Great War, when
our sons were being killed and wounded, the Nationalists did not disguise
their sympathy for Germany. We bore their insults in silence, not desiring
to stir up feeling or complicate matters. We were also afraid of offending
the susceptibilities of the Dutch community. If the other side had as much
regard for the feelings of the English as the English had for the feelings
of the Dutch, there would be no racialism to-day. In face of all that the
South African Party is accused of racialism. More of it exists on the other
side of the House. No one can accuse me of being unfriendly disposed to the
Dutch. I have been in this country for 56 years. I have had tempting offers
to settle in England, but I have thrown in my lot with South Africa. I love
the country, and I have an affection for its people, but I am also devoted
to the land of my birth and revere its Flag,—
Lives there a man with soul so dead Who never to himself has said, This is
my own, my native land?
I
can give many instances of this feeling of regard for the Dutch. I will give
one notable example. I have been Chairman of the Jagersfontein Diamond
Mining Company for many years. I occupied the position during the Boer War.
Just before the War that company employed 90 per cent, of Free Staters, and
a few Trans-vaalers, and the balance were tradesmen from overseas. When the
war broke out these white employees joined their different Commandoes. The
mine was closed for three years at a loss of three-quarters of a million of
money to the shareholders. When the war was over the General Manager wrote
and asked me what policy to adopt with regard to the old employees. I said
that every employee who was there when war broke out, and who joined his
Commando, could re-join the Company, and those who did not do so should
never be re-employed. I fought against the Republic in those days, and I
respected the men who fought so bravely for it. Some of those men are still
in the employ of this Company.
To
my mind it is the primary duty of Government to allay, and not excite bitter
feeling, to appease and not irritate, to bring people together and not
divide them and to aim at contentment, not discord. This Bill violates all
those principles of good Government. There was no real need to change the
Flag. The moderates of both sides were satisfied with the Vierkleur and
Union Jack. Why then throw this bombshell amongst us? The country was
reconciled to the two Flags until it, unfortunately, entered the mind of the
Minister of the Interior to haul down the Union Jack. This flag has flown
over the Cape Province for 120 years, and in Natal since its earliest days.
I had a letter from a man whom you might consider to be an extremist, a
hot-head, and in that letter to me he said:
"
If this Bill passes and becomes law, at some future time some hot-headed
Minister will bring in a Bill to make it an offence to rise in your seat or
to raise your hat when the band plays 'God save the King.' This would
probably get some support from the Labour Party if two or three of their
members were in the Cabinet. ... I cannot excuse an Englishman voting for
the Bill. The action of the Members of the Conference at East London who
voted in favour of neutrality when their own countrymen were engaged in a
life and death struggle, was unpardonable. They had not the inclination to
fight themselves, so thought they would prevent others joining, to justify
their own conduct, whilst hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen were
laying down their lives to maintain the integrity of the British Empire."
Thank God Britons are made of sterner stuff than those gentlemen, otherwise
we should not be discussing the Union Jack in this House to-day; the German
flag would be floating over this country, and it would have gone hard with
those who tried to pull down that flag.
An
Hon. Member: "What did you do?"
Col. Sir David Harris: "Those of us who were too old, their sons went. I am
not referring to the Members of the Labour Party who went to the front."
An
Hon. Member: "I am one of those."
Col. Sir David Harris: "You are, but you are in bad company. War is a
terrible thing. It always brings suffering and ruin and pain to both sides.
Just after the conclusion of peace I visited the battlefields of France, and
there saw towns destroyed, whole districts devastated, cities with
populations of from twenty to fifty thousand people. Cathedrals, churches,
hotels, theatres, houses of the rich and poor were blown to atoms, and these
big towns were nothing but pulverised debris heaps."
Mr. Mostert:"You did not think of the devastation which took place in the
Transvaal during the Boer War."
Col. Sir David Harris: "Will the hon. member have patience? When the late
residents returned to Ypres, where I visited with Mr. Feetham and the Prime
Minister of Australia, they came back and could not recognise where their
homes formerly stood. There was nothing left of the town. I know that people
suffered in this country during the Boer War. At the beginning the Cape
Colony and Natal were invaded, and they suffered. Compared with the
sufferings of the French and Belgians in the Great War, the people in this
country in comparison were in clover. The suffering was not one-sided.
Thousands of English people and families had to leave Johannesburg and came
down to the Cape, and people who had comfortable homes had to live on
charity in Cape Town."
Mr. Le Roux: "Who forced them to come?" Col. Sir David Harris: "The
Republics forced them to come. Five thousand people forced from the
Transvaal rushed into Kimberley. One thousand five hundred people in Barkly
West were escorted from their homes to Modder River, and were handed over to
the British Forces. They were marched over 50 miles of country in the height
of summer. They also suffered. I do not want to go too much into details, it
is a painful subject. During the Kimberley Siege—I know something about it,
because I was second in command—500 civilians were killed from shellfire or
died of scurvy. We have not squealed about it. We have not made a fuss about
it, like the hon. member from Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who was in his
cradle when the war broke out. I suffered during the defence of Kimberley. I
lost seventeen pounds in weight. When we were relieved all we said was: '
Thank God we kept the Flag flying.' It was the Flag we thought about, and
not what we suffered.
"
It is a marvellous thing to me that hon. members on the other side, who did
not fight in the Boer War, are more bitter and irreconcilable than the
Burghers who fought right through the Boer War. I cannot understand the
mentality of the present generation. I will give an example: When the war
commenced a big commando dashed around Kimberley and swept off 700 head of
cattle. That was quite correct; it was one of the incidents of war, and no
one complained about it. In their orders the generals complimented the
commando on capturing 700 head of cattle from Kimberley. In December, near
Christmas, when the people were hungry, I was instrumental in capturing 187
head of Boer cattle, which were grazing between Susanna and Olifantsfontein,
five or six miles from Kimberley. Five or six days after a spy brought in a
newspaper, and the first thing I saw was a paragraph referring to Col.
Harris as the cattle thief. That is their mentality. I 'stole' but the
Burghers 'captured.' The Flag which proudly waved over Kimberley during the
war hon. members on the other side are endeavouring to pull down by
legislative enactment. It is nothing to be proud of. Men who were formerly
clergymen, are raking up the past and stirring up feeling and discord, when
they should be preaching peace and goodwill to all men. During the Boer War
both sides suffered. There is no doubt about it, we all acknowledge,
everybody must acknowledge, history will acknowledge, that the Boers put up
a grand fight during the war. I appreciated it and I admired them for it.
The races that have been brought together by the statesmen who framed the
South Africa Acts, are being torn asunder by prejudiced politicians. Why not
let things remain as they were, and let the people be free to fly the flag
they like, the Vierkleur or the Union Jack, or embody the two in one flag?
The Dutch have every reason to be proud of the Vierkleur. There is no
episode in history that excels the heroism, the bravery and the prowess of
the Voortrekkers, and I am proud to think that in that commando there was a
sprinkling of Englishmen. Their defeat of Dingaan is an epic. I take off my
hat and I salute the Vierkleur and on the 16th December every year I raise
the Vierkleur on the flagstaff of my house."
Mr. Mostert: "You never saluted it when it was flying."
Col Sir David Harris: "And we are equally proud of the Union Jack. Why not
combine the two. It would be a compliment, the greatest compliment that the
two brave races could pay to each other. In conclusion, let me say this,
what has been truly said and verified in history, that by unity the smallest
States thrive, by discord the greatest are destroyed."
Many men who were on the Diamond Fields in the early days afterwards became
prominent in the political arena. Among others, Mr. 'Moore rose to be Sir
Frederick R. Moore (Prime Minister of Natal), Charles Coghlan was the first
Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Colonel Schermbrucker was Minister of Public
Works in the Sprigg Government, Fischer, Prime Minister of the Orange Free
State, and H. C. Hull held the portfolio of Finance in the Botha Ministry.
In
1872 John Xavier Merriman was buying diamonds in Kimberley. He soon acquired
political fame, and for over fifty years was ranked as the best debater in
Parliament. At times he would hit the Opposition very hard; he would let
down his supporters very lightly, and he would at times criticise them
fearlessly when he thought they had taken the wrong turning.
If
ever a man held the scales of justice evenly, it was Merriman. He would
shudder to think that a Bill or a motion of any kind would not deal fairly
with white or black. Socially he was one of the most charming of men, and it
was an education in itself to be on friendly terms with him.
Frequently we sat together in the Lobby of the House and chatted over a cup
of tea. I invariably did most of the listening, as I felt I could gain more
by a silent tongue than by forcing my views on a man whose opinions were
always to be respected. He frequently encouraged new members by words of
welcome and sane advice. I always felt a proud man when he would say to me,
"Harris, my boy, you delivered a fine speech."
Merriman harboured a grievance. It was that he was not appointed to the
position of first Prime Minister of the Union. He considered he was entitled
to this honour, because at the time of the amalgamation of the four
Provinces he was Prime Minister of the senior Province—Cape Colony. Botha
offered him a seat in the first Cabinet of the Union, but he declined.
Despite his sense of disappointment, he did not retain any ill feeling
against Botha. On the contrary, he gave him every support, though at times
he criticised his policy in measured terms.
He
had the greatest admiration for General Smuts, and in the House he often
referred to the General's "plucky and wonderful advance to the Cape during
the Boer War," and to the manner in which he had "watered the horses of his
Commando under the shadow of Table Mountain—a marvellous achievement worthy
of a great warrior."
Merriman hated obstruction during debates. It irritated him, and if
opportunity arose he would lash out at the delinquents, who more often than
not felt sorry they had spoken.
Mr. and Mrs. Merriman were a most devoted couple. She was ever solicitous
for his physical welfare, and it was not an uncommon sight, when the weather
was bad—wind, rain or hail—for her to bring an umbrella and overcoat to the
Lobby, and insist on his making use of them. She died suddenly one afternoon
in her home. Merriman was then eighty years of age, and he never really got
over the loss.
As
time went on, it was plain to every member of the House that he was a
greatly changed man. Gone was his clear line of thought; cohesion gave way
to rambling. He could not follow his notes in proper sequence, and he now
frequently jumbled his figures. For about ten years I sat next to him on the
back benches, and could see the great change. The charming voice remained,
but the giant had become a weakling. The entire House grieved when it was so
apparent that he was declining.
I
often tried to help him when he would mislay his notes, or lose his
spectacles, and would prompt him when he was confusing sentences or
forgetting the right adjective. Occasionally, I felt I was of some
assistance, but it was like trying to revive the trunk of a mighty tree that
was rapidly decaying. He was too ill to come forward as a candidate for the
1924 General Election, and passed away on the 2nd of August, 1926, in his
eighty-fifth year.
Parliament, which he loved and elevated for half a century, saw him no more.
When shall we see his like again?
Doctor Jameson, more familiarly known as "Dr. Jim," started in the medical
profession in the early days of Kimberley. With good credentials, he quickly
established himself, and in a very short time he enjoyed the leading
practice in the town. Always cheerful and easy-going, he became very popular
among his many patients who benefited by his skill and attention.
A
few years after his arrival he struck up a friendship with Rhodes—a
friendship which was destined to continue uninterruptedly until the death of
the great Empire builder in 1902. An ardent Imperialist, in full sympathy
with Rhodes' policy of Empire extension, he agreed with Rhodes' scheme of
direct railway communication from Cape to Cairo, with the British flag
flying over the entire distance. This could have been an accomplished fact
if that exclusive Belgian nation had not been allowed to block the way North
of Rhodesia.
Dr. Jameson became Administrator of Rhodesia, and fully justified the high
opinion in which he was held by Rhodes, and filled a difficult position with
much distinction until the unfortunate Raid which deprived him of his
important office.
He
sincerely sympathised with the British residents in Johannesburg. A lover of
freedom, he hated the idea that so many of his countrymen were to be treated
as political helots when they were contributing the bulk of the revenue to
the Transvaal Treasury, and were, as a body, far more intelligent than
Kruger's burghers.
When, therefore, he was approached by the English residents of the Rand,
among whom were many of his old friends, their appeal for help did not fall
on deaf ears. So much, however, has been written from time to time about the
Jameson Raid, that I need not, at this stage, repeat facts which are already
widely known.
In
1900 Jameson was elected a Member of the Cape Parliament for Kimberley. He
sat there for two whole sessions as a silent member. He was attacked,
criticised and condemned by his political opponents for the part he had
played in the Raid, but not a word escaped his lips in his own defence. He
took the gruelling without a murmur. He sat quiet and uncomplaining, and
bore the ordeal as unflinchingly as he did his sentence of imprisonment in
1896.
In
1904 he was elected a Member for Grahams-town, and he became Prime Minister
of the Cape Colony after the General Election of that year— less than nine
years after the Raid. He had a working majority of seven or eight in a House
composed of seventy-nine Members, and he held the reins of Government for
about four years with signal tact and ability. He was popular on both sides
of the House, and the Opposition henceforth refrained from making any
allusions to incidents of the Raid.
During the Boer War a large number of Dutch Colonials rebelled by joining
the forces of the Transvaal and Orange Free State Republics. They were all
disfranchised by the Schreiner Government, which probably accounted for
Jameson's majority at the 1904 General Election. While in office, however,
Jameson carried through an Amnesty Bill which again placed the erring
Colonials on the Voters Roll.
Jameson must have fully realised that this step would mean his downfall at
the pending General Election, particularly as those replaced on the
Electoral roll were strong supporters of the Bond Party. Notwithstanding
this, he did the chivalrous thing, feeling no doubt that he, too, had also
taken a wrong step, and that "to err is human, to forgive divine."
This undaunted Scotsman has long since been gathered unto his fathers, and
is resting on the majestic Matopos beside the grave of his great chief.
Imbued with sentiment and patriotism in a large measure, General Botha was a
lovable man. South Africa and his people were always uppermost in his
thoughts. He was one of the best politicians the country has yet produced;
while as a Boer General he was a born soldier and had no equal.
I
had a great affection for this rugged son of the veld. For his successor,
General Smuts, I hold an immense admiration. His outstanding ability,
culture, intellect and remarkable knowledge of world affairs must stamp him
as an acquisition to the country he loves so well.
It
is well known that General Botha would never take any important step on his
own account. He invariably consulted his versatile lieutenant, who has
piloted the ship of State through many stormy seas. South Africa practically
owes her history to the Botha-Smuts combination, which governed the country
during the first ten years under the new constitution. During this time the
development and prosperity of South Africa went steadily ahead.
Botha was the type of man whose word was his bond. He was one of the
signatories to the Vereeniging Treaty at the conclusion of the Boer War, and
through strictly adhering to its conditions he lost the support of many of
his commandants and comrades. This he deeply regretted, but having once
placed his signature to the document that brought about the much-wanted
peace, he strictly abided by its terms, and nothing would shake his
determination to carry out his obligation to the letter.
General Botha's bitterest and saddest trial was the Rebellion of 1914, when
many of his trusted Generals and Commandants turned and took the field
against him. I happened to be in Cape Town when this military drama was
acted.
On
the verandah of the Civil Service Club I met General Smuts, and at the time
he wore a worried look. I asked him if the news of the Rebellion was true.
"I am afraid it is," he answered gravely, "but the worst feature of the
rising is that we have very little ammunition, and it is almost impossible
to get any just now. We have cabled to England, Australia and other British
countries to help us in this direction. We can only get a limited supply
from India, and it cannot arrive here until four or five weeks hence."
I
sympathised with him in his plight. From personal experience I knew what a
large number of cartridges are blazed off in but one action, so I was much
concerned about the shortage. I suddenly remembered that there was a large
quantity of .303 ammunition in Kimberley, a stock left over from the siege,
so I willingly offered him 100,000 rounds from that supply. General Smuts
lost no time in sending a telegram in code to Colonel Thackeray (then
District Staff Officer), and four hours later the ammunition was railed to
its destination.
General Botha soon took the field with the loyal burghers, and the remnants
of different contingents who had not yet left for the German West Campaign,
and by skilfully manoeuvring his forces he defeated the rebels, who
surrendered after a few sharp fights. It was with a sore heart that this
Afrikander stalwart was forced to battle against his own people. Throughout
the Rebellion he was anxious to shed as little blood as possible, and
consequently issued strict orders that, until the enemy showed fight, they
were not to be fired on. Several loyal men were killed and wounded owing to
this instruction, because the rebels generally fired first, before the
Government forces could reply. General Botha desired his Commandants to
encircle the enemy and so compel them to surrender, but unfortunately this
plan did not materialise because of the aggressive tactics of the rebels.
Two very old friends of mine, W. Pickering and Percy Ross Frames, lost two
gallant and promising sons while fighting with the Union troops in this
lamentable campaign.
When the Rebellion was nearing an end, and while a large force was resting
for a while in Kimberley, I had the pleasure of entertaining several of the
officers to lunch. One of them, Captain Noltke, told me that his brother had
been killed while advancing under cover of a white flag to parley with the
rebels, and that he and several officers would not fight again under like
orders.
General Botha was greatly concerned with the part played by the Navy in the
Great War, and took a very serious view of Admiral Von Spee's victory near
the Falkland Islands. He realised that the extensive coast of South Africa
was entirely unprotected, and was at the mercy of the German battle
squadrons. At this time a large force from the Union was operating in German
West Africa, and it would have gone hard with them had a German squadron of
the strength of that of Admiral Von Spee blockaded the ports of German South
West, and landed a large contingent in the rear. Communication by sea would
have been entirely cut, and General Botha's forces would have been compelled
to retire for hundreds of miles over a difficult and waterless country. It
was therefore a great relief when Admiral Von Spee's fleet was afterwards
practically annihilated by Admiral Sturdee.
Generals Botha and Smuts proceeded to England in 1919 to attend the Peace
Conference at a time when the Union Parliament was in Session. When the
Assembly prorogued, I immediately sailed for England, and frequently met
General Botha at the Savoy Hotel. On several occasions he telephoned to me
to see him, as he was anxious to learn what had transpired in Parliament
during his absence.
One day I found him in confidential mood. "Harris," he said, "the terms
demanded by the Allies are too severe. Germany can never fulfil the
conditions insisted on. It will ruin her, and probably lead to another big
war before very long. Germany is a proud nation, and will not submit to
financial and economic strangulation without making a last desperate effort
to extricate herself."
The Allies certainly seemed bent on adhering to the severe conditions laid
down, and it appeared quite impossible to shake their determination. Lloyd
George was a prominent member of the Conference, and exercised great
influence over its deliberations.
Botha then told me that he had reminded Lloyd George of the fact that if the
English had been more moderate in their terms at the first Peace Conference
at Vereeniging, peace would have been arranged eighteen months before the
close of the Boer War, thereby greatly reducing the casualties, suffering
and expense. He also said that if the same terms at the Second Peace
Conference had been offered at first, the war would have been finished.
Lloyd George was evidently impressed, and said he would endeavour to induce
the Conference to be more lenient towards Germany. He succeeded, very much
to Botha's satisfaction.
The leader of the South African people returned to the Union shortly
afterwards. One Friday morning I bade him farewell at the Savoy Hotel. At
the time he was wearing the uniform of a General, as he was about to pay
some official visits before leaving Waterloo. There was no time for
conversation. I wished him a pleasant voyage and a safe arrival.
He
clasped my hand in a tight grip, and said cordially, " Good-bye, Oom1 David.
Jannie (meaning Smuts) and I have done our best to bring about a lasting
peace, and I am now returning to South Africa to do my very best for my own
people."
We
parted, never to see each other again. A week before I reached Cape Town, a
Marconi message received on board contained the sad news that this great
statesman and outstanding soldier had gone to his eternal rest.
General Hertzog, the present Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa,
appears to have two distinct individualities. Privately he is most
courteous, kind-hearted and considerate, a most affectionate husband, with a
love for his children that could not be excelled. Socially, it is a pleasure
to converse with him; he is so natural a conversationalist, does not put on
airs, nor presume on his high position. He is a good friend, and has
assisted relatives when his income was very limited and perhaps only
sufficient for his own personal requirements. Apart from politics, he is a
most lovable man, but this is where we meet the second personality. I
believe he has great admiration and sincere regard for the present
Governor-General and his tactful, charming wife, Princess Alice, but in his
heart of hearts he considers their presence, in their official capacity,
unnecessary, because they represent England and in a measure constitute a
bond between South Africa and the Empire. I have known the General since his
boyhood, and have had special opportunities of watching his career. His
private, domestic and social qualities leave nothing to be desired, but as a
politician he at times is very bitter and unreasonable, and not quite fair
to his opponents. In debate he allows his passions to run away from his
better judgment, and he lashes out right and left, General Smuts being
generally selected for his great fund of invective. In very heated party
debates he never pours oil on the troubled waters, but increases it to fever
heat by going one better than any of his extremist supporters. It is a great
pity that he cannot exercise control of himself on these occasions, for if
he could do so he would make an ideal leader. That he is unfriendly disposed
to England is apparent to most people. His two-stream policy, secession
movement, flag question, and German Treaty alone prove this up to the hilt,
not to mention the desire to limit the purchasing of English manufactures, a
shortsighted policy, considering that England is far and away South Africa's
best customer for its agricultural products, and would be in a position to
buy more if South Africa increased her purchases from the United
Kingdom—which she could do were it not for restrictions imposed by the
Nationalist Party.
About four or five years ago I was in England when there was a Conference
with the Prime Ministers of the Dominions. General Hertzog was in London at
the time. An historical banquet was held at Guildhall, the Lord Chancellor
presided, and the cream of England was present, including Cabinet
Ministers—about 700 sat down to a most brilliant affair. Two Prime Ministers
were conspicuous by their absence—the Irish Premier and General Hertzog. I
thought this very significant, neither gentleman being a lover of England,
though both would gladly welcome the assistance and protection of the
British Navy if the coasts of their respective countries were threatened by
a hostile fleet, for neither country possesses even one cruiser.
General J. C. Smuts is an outstanding man, with a world-wide reputation. He
has been wise enough to throw off his dislike of England engendered during
the Boer War, feeling, no doubt, that the best interests of South Africa
depend on friendly relations and reciprocal trade between Great Britain and
the Union. Smuts has kept his party together when other leaders would have
failed. It is no secret that there is a diversity of opinion among his
supporters on the native question— this was apparent at many Caucus Meetings
I attended in the House of Assembly, but Smuts, with his great tact and
persuasive powers, managed to extricate the party from its dilemma, so,
despite the difference existing on a most important and difficult question,
the South African Party to a man is loyal to Smuts even after he prematurely
dissolved Parliament in 1924 at the height of his Government's unpopularity.
When I entered the House on the Monday afternoon to my great surprise Smuts
was announcing his intention to appeal to the country. This he did on a
majority vote of the Cabinet which met that morning. After he had taken the
fateful step, the party was summoned to a Caucus Meeting the next morning.
He should have consulted his party before announcing his resignation; had he
done so a large majority would have been opposed to dissolution. He could
have carried on for at least another year before Parliament dissolved by
effluxion of time, and probably lived down some of the pettifogging and
irritating taxing measures which should never have been imposed. I doubt if
then he would have been returned to power, but I am confident he would not
have encountered such a decisive and crushing defeat. Smuts must have
thought that many Dutch constituencies would resent the inclusion of labour
members in the Nationalist Ministry, but he left out of his calculations the
large number of Hertzog's blind followers who support the man regardless of
his policy and intentions. Smuts' mistake will, in all probability, keep him
out of office for at least ten years. But he is not, by far, the only
statesman who has misjudged the situation. The measure of man's genius is
estimated by the gravity of his errors; there are many examples of this in
ancient and modern history.
If
Smuts were a Britisher, England would be proud of him, the greatest and most
important positions would be open to him. The House of Lords would welcome
him, he would be an acquisition to the House of Commons, but in the country
of his ancestors and birth a large number of his own countrymen, from
feelings of jealousy, petty spite, and for political purposes, have never a
good word for him, oppose and attack him most persistently beyond the bounds
of fair and reasonable criticism. Their jealousy is practically a sign of
their own inferiority.
As
a rule Smuts is calm and cool in the most exciting debates, and when being
personally attacked. I saw him lose his temper on one occasion only when
Prime Minister. The front opposition bench were condemning General Botha a
few years after his death, and, losing all control of themselves, accused
this great patriotic Statesman and soldier of being a traitor to his
country. Smuts, with all his calmness and self-control, could not stand
this. I shall never forget his scathing language when replying to this gross
libel; it will remain indelibly imprinted in my memory. I can almost see
Smuts, when replying, pointing the finger of scorn at the opposition and
saying heatedly, "You remind me of a lot of yelping curs snarling round the
grave of a dead lion"; could anything be more effective?
Smuts' loyalty to General Botha is beyond all praise. In education, culture,
legal knowledge and eloquence he was far superior to his chief, though his
political instincts were not equal. Neither by intrigue nor other methods
did he ever try to supersede him as Premier; such a thought never entered
his head. If Botha had lived and been leader of his party for fifty years,
Smuts would have loyally stood by and assisted him with all his great
ability. The friendship and mutual affection of these two outstanding men
earned the admiration of their followers. Both Smuts and Botha strictly
adhered to the Treaty of Vereeniging, despite the loss of many Dutch
supporters who still harbour hatred of England, as was evident in the Great
War, when they openly sympathised with Germany, advocated the neutrality of
South Africa, and opposed the Union assisting the Allies. Botha and Smuts,
on the contrary, did everything possible to encourage recruiting, which
resulted in South Africa supplying its full quota of men to the British
Army.
After the death of Botha and before the General Election of 1920, Smuts
issued his manifesto having for its object the bringing of the two different
white races together. I, like many others, was influenced, feeling that this
policy was in the best interests of the country, so I immediately joined his
party and have remained a staunch supporter. When Parliament dissolved in
1924 I determined not to seek re-election again as I did not relish the idea
of spending my declining years in Parliament, having had the painful
experience of seeing two distinguished men, Sir Gordon Sprigg and Merriman,
do so. Smuts, however, begged me to stand, and sent urgent messages and
telegrams requesting me to be "his comrade in the coming Electoral
campaign." I felt it to be my duty as a Britisher to stand by the man who
had done so much and at such great sacrifice to assist the Empire in its
great hour of need, so I agreed, and was again returned to Parliament with a
bumping majority. The thought struck me that if I refused his request his
Dutch followers might have said, "Smuts, you did a lot for the British
Empire, many of your old comrades who fought with you through the Boer War
have parted company with you owing to the policy you are adopting, you asked
an Englishman to make a small sacrifice to help you and he refused"; with
these thoughts running through my mind, I exerted every ounce of strength I
had in a contested election, as I was opposed by a most formidable opponent
who was cocksure of defeating me. He was much too optimistic, for I beat him
badly.
There are naturally many incidents in a long career that have escaped my
memory. Several of my escapades are too trivial to relate; others are too
personal a character to chronicle without doing so at the risk of being
written down as a man of vanity. Had a friend undertaken the task of the
compilation of this book, he probably would have included in these memoirs
many extracts from newspapers, political speeches and despatches, but,
animated by a feeling of diffidence, I have embodied only incidents of a
general character which might interest my readers.
This short summary of part of my life refers more particularly to events
which have actually occurred, rather than to the unimportant part played by
myself in the general development of South Africa, for when I write of
Rhodes, Botha, Smuts, Merriman, Jameson and Hertzog, I feel very
insignificant compared with these outstanding men, who have made their mark
in the history of the country.
Since I first trod the soil of South Africa, Kimberley has been my home, and
even if my choice were given to me again, I would select no other. Its
inhabitants have always been more than kind to me. In joy and in sorrow,
they have expressed both their pleasure and sympathy, and when I decided to
retire from Parliament in 1929, I received many touching manifestations of
appreciation and affection from all classes of the community.
Kimberley has passed through good times and bad. Is there any town which has
had so many vicissitudes ? No centre in the Empire has proved itself so
self-reliant in time of siege and pestilence. There has never been any
crying out for help— the people have always buckled to and helped
themselves.
During the siege there was not a rifle to spare. We could easily have armed
an additional 2,000 men, all eager to join the Defence Force, had the
necessary weapons been forthcoming from the Bond Government.
In
the plague of 1918, men, women and girls came forward voluntarily to succour
and nurse those who were stricken down, and many of them paid the penalty
for their heroism. There was no scarcity of civilian helpers, and as their
numbers dwindled, the gaps were immediately filled by others as undaunted as
those who would nurse no more.
In
all the native wars Kimberley supplied its full quota of citizen soldiers,
and during the Great War no city in the Empire having the same population
provided a greater proportion of recruits. This town has a fine record, and
I indeed feel proud to be associated with its people.
During the thirty-two years I represented Griqualand West in Parliament, the
electors gave me practically discretionary powers. They stood loyally by me,
returning me unopposed on three different occasions.
I
can never adequately repay them for their confidence and consideration. They
have showered honours on me greater than I deserve. Racialism, the curse of
South Africa, is entirely absent from Kimberley. Such a thing as a colour
bar does not exist. There is no other place in the Union where the coloured
community is so happy and contented. Here they are free to profit by the
ability with which Nature has endowed them. The white inhabitants are a
broad-minded people, imbued with the spirit of Rhodes —the spirit that first
breathed that memorable utterance
"
Equal rights to all civilised men South of the Zambesi."
I
have frequently refused to accept many tempting offers to settle down in
England, preferring to remain in Kimberley, where I am happy and contented,
and among whose good people I hope to end my days
