A CENTURY OF WRONG

ISSUED BY

F. W. REITZ

_State Secretary of the South African Republic_

WITH PREFACE BY

W. T. STEAD

"Audi Alteram Partem"

LONDON:

"REVIEW OF REVIEWS" OFFICE, MOWBRAY HOUSE, NORFOLK STREET, W. C. 

CONTENTS. 

 PAGE. PREFACE. _By W. T. Stead_. Vii. 

INTRODUCTION 1

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE 4

THE FOUNDING OF NATAL 13

THE ORANGE FREE STATE 17

THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC 23

THE CONVENTIONS OF 1881 AND 1884 33

CAPITALISTIC JINGOISM--FIRST PERIOD 37

CAPITALISTIC JINGOISM--SECOND PERIOD 49

CONCLUSION 89

APPENDIX A. --Lord Derby's Dispatch on Convention of 1884 101 B. --The Annexation of the Diamond Fields 105 C. --The Reply to Mr. Chamberlain's Dispatch on Grievances 109 D. --The Final Dispatch of Mr. State Secretary Reitz 127 E. --The Text of the Conventions, 1852, 1881, and 1884 128

INDEX 149

PREFACE. 

"In this awful turning point of the history of South Africa, on the eveof the conflict which threatens to exterminate our people, it behoves usto speak the truth in what may be, perchance, our last message to theworld. "

Such is the _raison d'être_ of this book. It is issued by StateSecretary Reitz as the official exposition of the case of the Boeragainst the Briton. I regard it as not merely a duty but an honour to bepermitted to bring it before the attention of my countrymen. 

Rightly or wrongly the British Government has sat in judgment upon theSouth African Republic, rightly or wrongly it has condemned it to death. And now, before the executioner can carry out the sentence, the accusedis entitled to claim the right to speak freely--it may be for the lasttime--to say why, in his opinion, the sentence should not be executed. Aliberty which the English law accords as an unquestioned right to thefoulest murderer cannot be denied to the South African Republic. It ison that ground that I have felt bound to afford the spokesman of ourDutch brethren in South Africa the opportunity of stating their case inhis own way in the hearing of the Empire. 

Despite the diligently propagated legend of a Reptile press fed by Dr. Leyds for the purpose of perverting public opinion, it is indisputablethat so far as this country is concerned Mr. Reitz is quite correct insaying that the case of the Transvaal "has been lost by default beforethe tribunal of public opinion. "

It is idle to point, in reply to this, to the statements that haveappeared in the press of the Continent. These pleadings were notaddressed to the tribunal that was trying the case. In the British pressthe case of the Transvaal was never presented by any accredited counselfor the defence. Those of us who have in these late months beencompelled by the instinct of justice to protest against the campaign ofmisrepresentation organised for the purpose of destroying the SouthAfrican Republic were in many cases so far from authorised exponents ofthe South African Dutch that some of them--among whom I may be reckonedfor one--were regarded with such suspicion that it was most difficultfor us to obtain even the most necessary information from therepresentatives of the Government at Pretoria. Nor was this suspicionwithout cause--so far at least as I was concerned. 

For nearly a quarter of a century it might almost have been contendedthat I was one of the leading counsel for the prosecution. First as thefriend and advocate of the Rev. John Mackenzie, then as the friend andsupporter of Mr. Cecil Rhodes, and latterly as the former colleague andupholder of Sir Alfred Milner, it had been my lot constantly, in seasonand out of season, to defend the cause of the progressive Britonagainst the Conservative Boer, and especially to advocate the Cause ofthe Reformers and Uitlanders against the old Tory Administration ofPresident Kruger. By agitation, by pressure, and even, if need be, inthe last resort by legitimate insurrection, I had always been ready toseek the establishment of a progressive Liberal Administration inPretoria. And I have at least the small consolation of knowing that ifany of the movements which I defended had succeeded, the present crisiswould never have arisen, and the independence of the South AfricanRepublic would have been established on an unassailable basis. But withsuch a record it is obvious that I was almost the last man in the Empirewho could be regarded as an authorised exponent of the case of theBoers. 

That in these last months I have been forced to protest against theattempt to stifle their independence is due to a very simple cause. Toseek to reform the Transvaal, even by the rough and ready means of alegitimate revolution, is one thing. To conspire to stifle the Republicin order to add its territory to the Empire is a very different thing. The difference may be illustrated by an instance in our own history. Several years ago I wrote a popular history of the House of Lords, inwhich I showed, at least to my own satisfaction, that for fifty yearsour "pig-headed oligarchs"--to borrow a phrase much in favour with theWar Party--had inflicted infinite mischief upon the United Kingdom bythe way in which they had abused their power to thwart the will of theelected representatives of the people. I am firmly of opinion that ourhereditary Chamber has done a thousand times more injury to the subjectsof the Queen than President Kruger has ever inflicted upon theaggrieved Uitlanders. I look forward with a certain grim satisfaction toassisting, in the near future, in a semi-revolutionary agitation againstthe Peers, in which some of our most potent arguments will be thosewhich the War Party has employed to inflame public sentiment against theBoers. But, notwithstanding all this, if a conspiracy of Invincibleswere to be formed for the purpose of ending the House of Lords byassassinating its members, or by blowing up the Gilded Chamber and allits occupants with dynamite, I should protest against such an outrage asvehemently as I have protested against the more heinous crime that isnow in course of perpetration in South Africa. And the very vehemencewith which I had in times past pleaded the cause of the People againstthe Peers would intensify the earnestness with which I would endeavourto avert the exploitation of a legitimate desire to end the SecondChamber by the unscrupulous conspirators of assassination and ofdynamite. Hence it is that I seize every opportunity afforded me ofenabling the doomed Dutch to plead their case before the tribunal whichhas condemned them, virtually unheard. 

In introducing _A Century of Wrong_ to the British public, I carefullydisassociate myself from assuming any responsibility for all or any ofthe statements which it contains. My _imprimatur_ was not sought, nor isit extended to the history contained in _A Century of Wrong_, exceptingin so far as relates to its authenticity as an exposition of what ourbrothers the Boers think of the way in which we have dealt with them forthe last hundred years. 

That is much more important than the endorsement by any Englishman asto the historical accuracy of the statements which it contains. For whatevery judicial tribunal desires, first of all, is to hear witnesses atfirst hand. Hitherto the British public has chiefly been condemned tosecond-hand testimony. In the pages of _A Century of Wrong_ it will, atleast, have an opportunity of hearing the Dutch of South Africa speakfor themselves. 

There is no question as to the qualifications of Mr. F. W. Reitz to speakon behalf of the Dutch Africander. Although at this moment StateSecretary for President Kruger, he was for nearly ten years ChiefJustice and then President of the Orange Free State, and he began hislife in the Cape Colony. The family is of German origin, but hisancestors migrated to Holland in the seventeenth century and becameDutch. His grandfather emigrated from Holland to the Cape, and foundedone of the Africander families. His father was a sheep farmer; one ofhis uncles was a lieutenant in the British Navy. 

Mr. Reitz is now in his fifty-sixth year, and received a good Englisheducation. After graduating at the South African College he came to theUnited Kingdom, and finished his studies at Edinburgh University, andafterwards at the Inner Temple, where he was called to the Bar in 1868. He then returned to the Cape, and, after practising as a barrister inthe Cape courts for six years, was appointed Chief Justice of the OrangeFree State, a post which he held for fifteen years. He was then electedand re-elected as President of the Orange Free State. In 1893 he paid alengthy visit to Europe and to the United Kingdom. After Dr. Leyds wasappointed to his present post as foreign representative of the SouthAfrican Republic, Mr. Reitz was appointed State Secretary, and all thenegotiations between the Transvaal and Great Britain passed through hishands. 

Mr. Reitz's narrative is not one calculated to minister to our nationalself-conceit, but it is none the worse on that account. Of those whominister to our vanity we have enough and to spare, with results notaltogether desirable. In the long controversy between the Boers and themissionaries Mr. Reitz takes, as might be expected, the view of his ownpeople. 

An English lady in South Africa writing to the _British Weekly_ ofDecember 21st, in reply to the statement of the Rev. Dr. Stewart, makessome observations on this feud between the Boers and the missionaries, which it may be well to bear in mind in discussing this question. Thelady ("I. M. ") says:--

 Dr. Stewart naturally starts from the mission question. I speak as the daughter of one of the greatest mission supporters that South Africa has ever known when I say that the earliest missionaries who came to this country were to a very large extent themselves the cause of all the Boer opposition which they may have had to encounter. When they arrived, they found the Boers at about the same stage of enlightenment with regard to missions as the English themselves had been in the time of Carey. And yet, in spite of prejudice and ignorance, every Boer of any standing was practically doing mission work himself, for when, according to unfailing custom, the "Books" were brought out morning and evening for family worship, the slaves were never allowed to be absent, but had to come and receive instruction with the rest of the family. But the tone and methods which the missionaries adopted were such as could not fail to arouse the aversion of the farmers, their great idea being that the coloured races, utter savages as yet, should be placed upon complete equality with their superiors. At Earl's Court we have recently seen something of how easily the natives are spoilt, and they were certainly not better in those days. When, however, the Boers showed that they disapproved of all this, the natives were immediately taught to regard them as their oppressors, and were encouraged to insubordination to their masters, and the ill-effects of this policy on the part of the missionaries has reached further than can be told. May I ask was this the tone that St. Paul adopted in his mission work among the oppressed slaves of his day?. .. It is not those who do _not_ know the Boers, like Dr. Stewart, but those who know them best, like Dr. Andrew Murray, who are not only enamoured of their simple lives, but who know also that with all their disadvantages and their positive faults they are still a people whose rule of life is the Bible, whose God is the God of Israel, and who as a nation have never swerved from the covenant with that God entered into by their fathers, the Huguenots of France and the heroes of the Netherlands. 

Upon this phase of the controversy there is no necessity to dwell atpresent, beyond remarking that those who are at present most disposed totake up what may be regarded as the missionary side should not forgetthat they are preparing a rod for their own backs. The AboriginesProtection Society has long had a quarrel with the Boers, but if ourImperialists are going to adopt the platform of Exeter Hall they willvery soon find themselves in serious disagreement with Mr. Cecil Rhodesand other Imperialist heroes of the hour. That the Dutch in South Africahave treated the blacks as the English in other colonies have treatedthe aborigines is probably true, despite all that Mr. Reitz can say ontheir behalf. But, whereas in Tasmania and the Australian Colonies theblack fellows are exterminated by the advancing Briton, the immediateresult of the advent of the Dutch into the Transvaal has been toincrease the number of natives from 70, 000 to 700, 000, without includingthose who were attracted by the gold mines. In dealing with native racesall white men have the pride of their colour and the arrogance of power. The Boers, no doubt, have many sins lying at their door, but it does notdo for the pot to call the kettle black, and so far as South Africa isconcerned, the difference between the Dutch and British attitudes towardthe native races is more due to the influence of Exeter Hall and thesentiment which it represents than to any practical difference betweenEnglish and Dutch Colonists as to the status of the coloured man. TheEnglish under Exeter Hall have undoubtedly a higher ideal as to thetheoretical equality of men of all races; but on the spot the arroganceof colour is often asserted as offensively by the Briton as by the Boer. The difference between the two is, in short, that the Boer has adjustedhis practice to his belief, whereas we believe what we do not practice. That the black population of the Transvaal is conscious of being treatedwith exceeding brutality by the Boers is disproved by the fact that formonths past all the women and children of the two Republics have beenleft at the absolute mercy of the natives in the midst of whom theylive. 

The English reader will naturally turn with more interest to Mr. Reitz'snarrative of recent negotiations than to his observations upon thehundred years of history which he says have taught the Dutch that thereis no justice to be looked for at the hands of a British Government. Theadvocates of the war will be delighted to find that Mr. Reitz assertsin the most uncompromising terms the right of the Transvaal to beregarded as an Independent Sovereign International State. Howeverunpleasant this may be to Downing Street, the war has compelled theGovernment to recognise the fact. When it began we were haughtily toldthat there would be no declaration of war, nor would the Republics berecognised as belligerents. The war had not lasted a month before thisvainglorious boast was falsified, and we were compelled to recognise theTransvaal as a belligerent State. It is almost incredible that even SirWilliam Harcourt should have fallen into the snare set for him by Mr. Chamberlain in this matter. The contention that the Transvaal cannot bean Independent Sovereign State because Article 4 of the Convention of1884 required that all treaties with foreign Powers should be submittedfor assent to England may afford a technical plea for assuming that itwas not an Independent Sovereign International State. But, as Mr. Reitzpoints out, no one questions the fact that Belgium is an InternationalIndependent Sovereign State, although the exercise of her sovereignty islimited by an international obligation to maintain neutrality. A stillstronger instance as proving the fact that the status of a sovereignState is not affected by the limitation of the exercise of itssovereignty is afforded by the limitation imposed by the Treaty of Parison the sovereign right of the Russian Empire to maintain a fleet in theBlack Sea. To forbid the Tsar to put an ironclad on the sea which washeshis southern coast was a far more drastic limitation of the inalienablerights of an Independent International Sovereign State than theprovision that treaties affecting the interests of another Power shouldbe subject to the veto of that Power, but no one has protested thatRussia has lost her international status on account of the limitationimposed by the Treaty of Paris. In like manner Mr. Reitz argues that theTransvaal, being free to conduct its diplomacy, and to make war, canfairly claim to be a Sovereign International State. The assertion ofthis fact serves as an Ithuriel's spear to bring into clear relief thesignificance of the revival by Mr. Chamberlain of the Suzerainty of1881. Upon this point Mr. Reitz gives us a plain straightforwardnarrative, the justice and accuracy of which will not be denied byanyone who, like Sir Edward Clarke, takes the trouble to read theofficial dispatches. 

I turn with more interest to Mr. Reitz's narrative of the precisedifferences of opinion which led to the breaking-off of negotiationsbetween the two Governments. Mr. Chamberlain, it will be remembered, said in his dispatch he had accepted nine-tenths of the conditions laiddown by the Boers if the five years' franchise was to be conceded. Whatthe tenth was which was not accepted Mr. Chamberlain has never told us, excepting that it was "a matter of form" which was "not worth a war. "Readers of Mr. Reitz's narrative will see that in the opinion of theBoers the sticking point was the question of suzerainty. If Mr. Chamberlain would have endorsed Sir Alfred Milner's declaration, andhave said, as his High Commissioner did, that the question aboutsuzerainty was etymological rather than political, and that he would sayno more about it, following Lord Derby's policy and abstaining fromusing a word which was liable to be misunderstood, there would have beenno war. So far as Mr. Reitz's authority goes we are justified in sayingthat the war was brought about by the persistence of Mr. Chamberlain inreviving the claim of suzerainty which had been expressly surrendered in1884, and which from 1884 to 1897 had never been asserted by any BritishGovernment. 

Another point of great importance is the reference which Mr. Reitz makesto the Raid. On this point he speaks with much greater moderation thanmany English critics of the Government. Lord Loch will be interested inreading Mr. Reitz's account of the way in which his visit to Pretoriawas regarded by the Transvaal Government. It shows that it was his visitwhich first alarmed the Boers, and compelled them to contemplate thepossibility of having to defend their independence with arms. But it wasnot until after the Jameson Raid that they began arming in earnest. Asthere is so much controversy upon this subject, it may be well to quotehere the figures from the Budget of the Transvaal Government, showingthe expenditure before and after the Raid. 

 Public Special Sundry Military. Works. Payments. Services. Total. £ £ £ £ £1889 75, 523 300, 071 58, 737 171, 088 605, 4191890 42, 999 507, 579 58, 160 133, 701 742, 4391891 117, 927 492, 094 52, 486 76, 494 739, 0011892 29, 739 361, 670 40, 276 93, 410 528, 0951893 19, 340 200, 106 148, 981 132, 132 500, 5591894[1] 28, 158 260, 962 75, 859 163, 547 521, 5261895[2] 87, 308 353, 724 205, 335 838, 877 1, 485, 2441896 495, 618 701, 022 682, 008 128, 724 2, 007, 3721897 396, 384 1, 012, 686 248, 864 135, 345 1, 793, 2791898[3] 163, 451 383, 033 157, 519 100, 874 804, 877

Of the Raid itself Mr. Reitz speaks as follows:--

 The secret conspiracy of the Capitalists and Jingoes to overthrow the South African Republic began now to gain ground with great rapidity, for just at this critical period Mr. Chamberlain became Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the secret correspondence of the conspirators, reference is continually made to the Colonial Office in a manner which, taken in connection with later revelations and with a successful suppression of the truth, has deepened the impression over the whole world that the Colonial Office was privy to, if not an accomplice in, the villainous attack on the South African Republic. 

 Nor has the world forgotten how, at the urgent instance of the Africander party in the Cape Colony, an investigation into the causes of the conflict was held in Westminster; how that investigation degenerated into a low attack upon the Government of the deeply maligned and deeply injured South African Republic, and how at the last moment, when the truth was on the point of being revealed, and the conspiracy traced to its fountain head in the British Cabinet, the Commission decided all of a sudden not to make certain compromising documents public. 

 Here we see to what a depth the old great traditions of British Constitutionalism had sunk under the influence of the ever-increasing and all-absorbing lust of gold, and in the hands of a sharp-witted wholesale dealer, who, like Cleon of old, has constituted himself a statesman. 

When Mr. Reitz wrote his book he did not know that immediately after theRaid the British Government began to accumulate information, and toprepare for the war with the Republic which is now in progress. Thereason why Mr. Reitz did not refer to this in _A Century of Wrong_ wasbecause documents proving its existence had not fallen into the hands ofthe Transvaal Government until after the retreat from Glencoe. MajorWhite and his brother officers who were concerned in the Raid were muchchaffed for the incredible simplicity with which he allowed a privatememorandum as to preparations for the Raid to fall into the hands of theBoers. His indiscretion has been thrown entirely into the shade by thesimplicity which allowed War Office documents of the most secret andcompromising nature to fall into the hands of the Boers, showing thatpreparations for the present war began immediately after the defeat ofthe Raid. The special correspondent of Reuter with the Boers telegraphedfrom Glencoe on October 28th as follows:--

 The papers captured at Dundee Camp from the British unveil a thoroughly worked out scheme to attack the independence of both Republics as far back as 1896, notwithstanding constant assurances of amity towards the Free State. 

 Among these papers there are portfolios of military sketches of various routes of invasion from Natal into the Transvaal and Free State, prepared by Major Grant, Captain Melvill, and Captain Gale immediately after the Jameson Raid. 

 A further portfolio marked secret styled "Reconnaissance Reports of Lines of Advance through the Free State" was prepared by Captain Wolley, on the Intelligence Division of the War Office, in 1897, and is accompanied by a special memorandum, signed by Sir Redvers Buller, to keep it secret. 

 Besides these there are specially executed maps of the Transvaal and Free State, showing all the natural features, also a further secret Report of Communications in Natal north of Ladysmith, including a memorandum of the road controlling Lang's Nek position. 

 Further, there is a short Military Report on the Transvaal, printed in India in August last, which was found most interesting. The white population is given at 288, 000, of whom the Outlanders number 80, 000, and of the Outlanders 30, 000 are given as of British descent--which figures the authorities regard as much nearer the truth than Mr. Chamberlain's statements made in the House of Commons. 

 One report estimates that 4, 000 Cape and Natal Colonists would side with the Republics in case of war, and that the small armament of the Transvaal consists of 62, 950 rifles, and that the Boers would prove not so mobile or such good marksmen as in the War of Independence. 

 Further, the British did not think much of the Johannesburg and Pretoria forts. 

 A further secret Report styled "Military Notes on the Dutch Republics of South Africa, " and numbers of other papers, not yet examined, were also found, and are to be forwarded to Pretoria. 

 The Free State burghers are now more than ever convinced that it was the right policy for them to fight along with the Transvaal, and they say, since they have seen the reports, that they will fight with, if possible, more determination than ever. 

It may be contended, no doubt, upon our part that these private reportswere none other than those which every Government receives from itsmilitary attachés, but it must be admitted that their discovery at thepresent moment is most inopportune for those who wish to persuade theFree State that they can rely upon the assertions of Great Britain thatno design was made upon their independence. If at this moment theportfolios of a German Staff Officer were to fall into the hands of anEnglish correspondent, and detailed plans for invading England were tobe published in all the newspapers as having been drawn up by Germanofficers told off for that purpose, it would not altogether tend toreassure us as to the good intentions of our Imperial neighbour. Howmuch more serious must be the publication of these documents seized atDundee upon a people which is actually at war. 

The concluding chapter of Mr. Reitz's eloquent impeachment of theconduct of Great Britain in South Africa is devoted to a delineation ofwhat he calls Capitalistic Jingoism. It is probable that a great manywho will read with scant sympathy his narrative of the grievances of hiscountrymen in the earlier part, of the century will revel in theinvective which he hurls against Mr. Rhodes and the Capitalists of theRand. If happier times return to South Africa, Mr. Reitz may yet findthe mistake he has made in confounding Mr. Rhodes with the meredividend-earning crew, who brought about this war in order to diminishthe cost of crushing gold by five or six shillings a ton. In therealisation of the ideal of Africa for the Africanders Mr. Rhodes mightbe more helpful to Mr. Reitz and the Dutch of South Africa than anyother living man. Whether it is possible for them to forget and forgivethe future alone will show. But at present it seems rather as if Mr. Reitz sees nothing between Africanderism and Capitalistic Jingoism butwar to the death. 

Mr. Reitz breaks off his narrative at the point immediately before theUltimatum. Those curious politicians who begin their survey of the warfrom the launching of that declaration will, therefore, find nothing in_A Century of Wrong_ to interest them. But those who take a fresh andintelligent view of a long and complicated historical controversy willwelcome the authoritative exposition of the causes which, in the opinionof the authors of the Ultimatum, justified, and, indeed, necessitatedthat decisive step. To what Mr. Reitz has said it is only necessary toadd one fact. 

The Ultimatum was dated October 9th. It was the natural response to themenace with which the British Government had favoured them three daysprevious, when on October 6th they issued the formal notice calling outthe Reserves for the avowed object of making war upon the South AfricanRepublic. 

Whether they were right or wrong, it is impossible to withhold a tributeof admiration and sympathy for the little States which confront theonslaughts of their Imperial foe with such heroic fortitude and serenecourage. As Dr. Max Nordau remarks in the _North American Review_ forDecember:--

 The fact that a tiny people faces death without hesitation to defend its independence against an enemy fabulously superior in number, or to die in the attempt, presents an aspect of moral beauty which no soul, attuned to higher things, will disregard. Even friends and admirers of England--yea, even the English themselves--strongly sense the pathos in the situation of the Dutch Boers, who feel convinced that they are fighting for their national existence, and agree that it equals the pathos of Leonidas, William Tell, and Kosciusko. 

Over and above all else the note in the State Secretary's appeal whichwill vibrate most loudly in the British heart is that in which heappeals to his countrymen to cling fast to the God of their forefathers, and to the righteousness which is sometimes slow in acting, but whichnever slumbers or forgets. "It proceeds according to eternal laws, unmoved by human pride and ambition. As the Greek poet of old said, itpermits the tyrant, in his boundless self-esteem, to climb higher andhigher, and to gain greater honour and might, until he arrives at theappointed height, and then falls down into the infinite depths. "

Who is there who remembers the boastings of the British press at theoutbreak of the war can read without awe the denunciations of the Hebrewseers against the nations and empires who in arrogance and pride forgotthe Lord their God?

"Behold, I am against thee, O thou most proud, saith the Lord God ofHosts: for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. And themost proud shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up. "

This, after all, is the great issue which underlies everything. Is thereor is there not in the affairs of men a Providence which the ancientspictured as the slow-footed Nemesis, but which we moderns have somewhatlearned to disregard? "If right and wrong, in this God's world of ours, are linked with higher Powers, " is the great question which the devoutsoul, whether warrior or saint, has ever answered in one way. When inthis country a leading exponent of popular Liberalism declares that"morally we can never win, but that physically we must and shall, " webegin to realise how necessary is the chastisement which has fallen uponus for our sins. If this interpretation of the situation be evenapproximately correct, the further we go the worse we shall fare. It isvain for us to kick against the pricks. 

 W. T. STEAD. _January 1st, 1900. _

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: 1894. --Year of Lord Loch's visit (in June) to Pretoria. ]

[Footnote 2: 1895. --Conspiracy, culminating in the Raid. ]

[Footnote 3: 1898. --First nine months. ]

A CENTURY OF WRONG. 

 * * * * *

INTRODUCTION. 

BROTHER AFRICANDERS!

Once more in the annals of our bloodstained history has the day dawnedwhen we are forced to grasp our weapons in order to resume the strugglefor liberty and existence, entrusting our national cause to thatProvidence which has guided our people throughout South Africa in such amiraculous way. 

The struggle of now nearly a century, which began when a foreign rulewas forced upon the people of the Cape of Good Hope, hastens to an end;we are approaching the last act in that great drama which is somomentous for all South Africa; we have reached a stage when it will bedecided whether the sacrifices which both our fathers and we ourselveshave made in the cause of freedom have been offered in vain, whether theblood of our race, with which every part of South Africa has been, as itwere, consecrated, has been shed in vain; and whether by the grace ofGod the last stone will now be built into the edifice which our fathersbegan with so much toil and so much sorrow. 

[Sidenote: The alternative of Africanderdom. ]

The hour has struck which will decide whether South Africa, in jealouslyguarding its liberty, will enter upon a new phase of its history, orwhether our existence as a people will come to an end, whether we shallbe exterminated in the deadly struggle for that liberty which we haveprized above all earthly treasures, and whether South Africa will bedominated by capitalists without conscience, acting in the name andunder the protection of an unjust and hated Government 7, 000 miles awayfrom here. 

[Sidenote: The necessity of historical retrospect. ]

In this hour it behoves us to cast a glance back at the history of thisgreat struggle. We do so not to justify ourselves, because liberty, forwhich we have sacrificed everything, has justified us and screened ourfaults and failings, but we do so in order that we may be, as it were, sanctified and prepared for the conflict which lies before us, bearingin mind what our people have done and suffered by the help of God. Inthis way we may be enabled to continue the work of our fathers, andpossibly to complete it. Their deeds of heroism in adventures with Bantuand Briton shine forth like guiding stars through the history of thepast, in order to point out the way for posterity to reach that goal forwhich our sorely tried people have made such great sacrifices, and forwhich they have undergone so many vicissitudes. 

The historical survey will, moreover, aid in bringing into strongerrelief those naked truths to which the tribunal of impartial historywill assuredly testify hereafter, in adjudging the case betweenourselves and our enemy. And the questions which present themselves forsolution in the approaching conflict have their origin deep in thehistory of the past; it is only by the light of that history that itbecomes possible to discern and appreciate the drifting straws whichfloat on the currents of to-day. By its light we are more clearlyenabled to comprehend the truth, to which our people appeal as a finaljustification for embarking upon the war now so close at hand. 

History will show convincingly that the pleas of humanity, civilisation, and equal rights, upon which the British Government bases its actions, are nothing else but the recrudescence of that spirit of annexation andplunder which has at all times characterised its dealings with ourpeople. 

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. 

The cause for which we are about to take up arms is the same, though insomewhat different form, as that for which so many of our forefathersunderwent the most painful experiences centuries ago, when theyabandoned house and fatherland to settle at the Cape of Good Hope, toenjoy there that freedom of conscience which was denied them in the landof their birth. In the beautiful valleys lying between the bluemountains of the Cape of Good Hope they planted the seed-germ ofliberty, which sprang up and has since developed with such startlingrapidity into the giant tree of to-day--a tree which not only covers aconsiderable area in this part of the world, but will yet, in God's goodtime, we feel convinced, stretch out its leafy branches over the wholeof South Africa. In spite of the oppressive bonds of the East IndiaCompany, the young settlement, containing the noblest blood of oldEurope as well as its most exalted aspirations, grew so powerfully thatin 1806, when the Colony passed into the hands of England, a strongnational sentiment and a spirit of liberty had already been developed. 

[Sidenote: The Africander spirit of liberty]

As is forcibly expressed in an old document dating from the mostrenowned period of our history, there grew out of the two stocks ofHollanders and French Huguenots "a united people, one in religion, united in peaceful reverence for the law, but with a feeling of libertyand independence equal to the wide expanse of territory which they hadrescued as a labour of love from the wilderness of nature, or from itsstill wilder aboriginal inhabitants. " When the Dutch Government made wayfor that of Great Britain in 1806, and, still more, when that change wassealed in 1814 by a transaction in which the Prince of Orange sold theCape to Great Britain for £6, 000, 000 against the wish and will of theinhabitants, the little settlement entered upon a new phase of itshistory, a phase, indeed, in which its people were destined by theirheroic struggle for justice, to enlist a world-wide sympathy on theirbehalf. 

[Sidenote: England's native policy. ]

Notwithstanding the wild surroundings and the innumerable savage tribesin the background, the young Africander nation had been welded into awhite aristocracy, proudly conscious of having maintained itssuperiority notwithstanding its arduous struggles. It was this sentimentof just pride which the British Government well understood how to woundin its most sensitive part by favouring the natives as against theAfricanders. So, for example, the Africander Boers were forced to lookwith pained eyes on the scenes of their farms and property devastated bythe natives without being in a position to defend themselves, becausethe British Government had even deprived them of their ammunition. Inthe same way the liberty-loving Africander burgher was coerced by apolice composed of Hottentots, the lowest and most despicable class ofthe aborigines, whom the Africanders justly placed on a far lower sociallevel than that of their own Malay slaves. 

[Sidenote: Slachter's Nek. ]

No wonder that in 1815 a number of the Boers were driven into rebellion, a rebellion which found an awful ending in the horrible occurrence ofthe 9th of March, 1816, when six of the Boers were half hung up in themost inhuman way in the compulsory presence of their wives and children. Their death was truly horrible, for the gallows broke down before theend came; but they were again hoisted up in the agony of dying, andstrangled to death in the murderous tragedy of Slachter's Nek. Whateveropinions have been formed of this occurrence in other respects, it wasat Slachter's Nek that the first bloodstained beacon was erected whichmarks the boundary between Boer and Briton in South Africa, and the eyesof posterity still glance back shudderingly through the long vista ofyears at that tragedy of horror. 

[Sidenote: The missionaries. ]

This was, however, but the beginning. Under the cloak of religionBritish administration continued to display its hate against our peopleand nationality, and to conceal its self-seeking aims under cover of themost exalted principles. The aid of religion was invoked to reinforcethe policy of oppression in order to deal a deeper and more fatal blowto our self-respect. Emissaries of the London Missionary Societyslandered the Boers, and accused them of the most inhuman cruelties tothe natives. These libellous stories, endorsed as they were by theBritish Government, found a ready ear amongst the English, and theresult was that under the pressure of powerful philanthropic opinion inEngland our unfortunate people were more bitterly persecuted than ever, and were finally compelled to defend themselves in courts of lawagainst the coarsest accusations and insults. But they emerged from theordeal triumphantly, and the records of the criminal courts of the CapeColony bear indisputable witness to the fact that there were no peopleamongst the slave-owning classes of the world more humane than theAfricander Boers. Their treatment of the natives was based on the theorythat natives ought not to be considered as mature and fully developedpeople, but that they were in reality children who had to be won over tocivilisation by just and rigid discipline; they hold the sameconvictions on this subject to-day, and the enlightened opinion of thecivilised world is inclining more and more to the same conclusion. Butthe fact that their case was a good one, and that it was triumphantlydecided in their favour in the law courts, did not serve to diminish, but rather tended to sharpen, the feeling of injustice with which theyhad been treated. 

[Sidenote: Emancipation of the slaves. ]

A livelier sense of wrong was quickened by the way in which theemancipation of the slaves--in itself an excellent measure--was carriedout in the case of the Boers. 

Our forefathers had become owners of slaves chiefly imported in Englishships and sold to us by Englishmen. The British Government decided toabolish slavery. We had no objection to this, provided we receivedadequate compensation. [4] Our slaves had been valued by Britishofficials at three millions, but of the twenty millions voted by theImperial Government for compensation, only one and a quarter millionswas destined for South Africa; and this sum was payable in London. Itwas impossible for us to go there, so we were forced to sell our rightsto middlemen and agents for a mere song; and many of our people were sooverwhelmed by the difficulties placed in their way that they took nosteps whatever to receive their share of the compensation. 

Greyheads and widows who had lived in ease and comfort went downpoverty-stricken to the grave, and gradually the hard fact was borne inupon us that there was no such thing as Justice for us in England. 

[Sidenote: Slavery at the Cape. ]

Froude, the English historian, hits the right nail on the head when hesays:--

 [5] "Slavery at the Cape had been rather domestic than predial; the scandals of the West India plantations were unknown among them. 

 Because the Dutch are a deliberate and slow people, not given to enthusiasm for new ideas, they fell into disgrace with us, where they have ever since remained. The unfavourable impression of them became a tradition of the English Press, and, unfortunately, of the Colonial Office. We had treated them unfairly as well as unwisely, and we never forgive those whom we have injured. "

[Sidenote: The Glenelg policy. ]

[6] But this was not all. When the English obtained possession of theCape Colony by convention, the Fish River formed the eastern boundary. The Kaffirs raided the Colony from time to time, but especially in 1834, when they murdered, plundered, and outraged the helpless Colonists in anawful and almost indescribable manner. The Governor was ultimatelyprevailed upon to free the strip of territory beyond the Fish River fromthe raids of the Kaffirs, and this was done by the aid of the Boers. ButLord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary, reversed this policy and restoredthe whole territory to the natives. He maligned the Boers in even moreforcible terms than the emissaries of the London Missionary Society, andopenly favoured the Kaffirs, placing them on a higher pedestal than theBoers. The latter had succeeded in rescuing their cattle from theKaffirs, but were forced to look on passively while the very samecattle, with the owner's brand marks plainly visible, were sold bypublic auction to defray the cost of the commando. It was useless tohope for justice from Englishmen. There was no security for life andproperty under the flag of a Government which openly elected to upholdWrong. The high-minded descendants of the proudest and most stubbornpeoples of Europe had to bend the knee before a Government which uniteda commercial policy of crying injustice with a veneer of simulatedphilanthropy. 

[Sidenote: The Dutch language. ]

But it was not only in regard to the Natives that the Boers wereoppressed and their rights violated. When the Cape was transferred toEngland in 1806, their language was guaranteed to the Dutch inhabitants. This guarantee was, however, soon to meet the same fate as the treatiesand conventions which were concluded by England with our people at laterperiods. 

The violator of treaties fulfilled its obligation by decreeing in 1825that all documents were for the future to be written in English. Petitions in the language of the country and complaints about bittergrievances were not even acknowledged. The Boers were excluded from thejuries because their knowledge of English was too faulty, and theircauses and actions had to be determined by Englishmen, with whom theyhad nothing in common. 

[Sidenote: The Great Trek. ]

After twenty years' experience of British administration it had becomeabundantly clear to the Boers that there was no prospect of peace andprosperity before them, for their elementary rights had been violated, and they could only expect oppression. They were without adequateguarantees of protection, and their position had become intolerable inthe Cape Colony. 

They decided to sell home, farm, and all that remained over from thedepredations of the Kaffirs, and to trek away from British rule. TheColony was at this time bounded on the north by the Orange River. 

[Sidenote: Legality of the Trek. ]

[7] At first, Lieutenant-GovernorStockenstrom was consulted; but he was of opinion that there was no lawwhich could prevent the Boers from leaving the Colony and settlingelsewhere. Even if such a statute existed, it would be tyrannical, aswell as impossible, to enforce it. 

The Cape Attorney-General, Mr. Oliphant, expressed the same opinion, adding that it was clear that the emigrants were determined to go intoanother country, and not to consider themselves British subjects anylonger. The same thing was happening daily in the emigration fromEngland to North America, and the British Government was and wouldremain powerless to stop the evil. 

The territory to the north of the Orange River and to the east of theDrakensberg lay outside the sphere of British influence or authority, and was, as far as was then known, inhabited by savages; but the Boersdecided to brave the perils of the wilderness and to negotiate with thesavages for the possession of a tract of country, and so form anindependent community rather than remain any longer under British rule. 

[Sidenote: The Manifesto of Piet Retief. ]

In the words of Piet Retief, when he left Grahamstown:--

 We despair of saving the Colony from those evils which threaten it by the turbulent and dishonest conduct of vagrants who are allowed to infest the country in every part; nor do we see any prospect of peace or happiness for our children in a country thus distracted by internal commotions. 

 We complain of the severe losses which we have been forced to sustain by the emancipation of our slaves, and the vexatious laws which have been enacted respecting them. 

 We complain of the continual system of plunder which we have for years endured from the Kaffirs and other coloured classes, and particularly by the last invasion of the Colony, which has desolated the frontier district and ruined most of the inhabitants. 

 We complain of the unjustifiable odium which has been cast upon us by interested and dishonest persons, under the name of religion, whose testimony is believed in England to the exclusion of all evidence in our favour; and we can foresee, as the result of this prejudice, nothing but the total ruin of the country. 

 We quit this Colony under the full assurance that the English Government has nothing more to require of us, and will allow us to govern ourselves without its interference in future. 

 We are now leaving the fruitful land of our birth, in which we have suffered enormous losses and continual vexation, and are about to enter a strange and dangerous territory; but we go with a firm reliance on an all-seeing, just, and merciful God, whom we shall always fear and humbly endeavour to obey. 

 In the name of all who leave this Colony with me. 

 P. RETIEF. 

[Sidenote: The English in pursuit. ]

We journeyed then with our fathers beyond the Orange River into theunknown north, as free men and subjects of no sovereign upon earth. Thenbegan what the English Member of Parliament, Sir William Molesworth, termed a strange sort of pursuit. The trekking Boer followed by theBritish Colonial Office was indeed the strangest pursuit ever witnessedon earth. [8] The British Parliament even passed a law in 1836 to imposepunishments beyond their jurisdiction up to the 25th degree south, andwhen we trekked further north, Lord Grey threatened to extend thisunrighteous law to the Equator. It may be remarked that in this law itwas specially enacted that no sovereignty or overlordship was to beconsidered as established thereby over the territory in question. 

[Sidenote: The Trichardt Trek. ]

The first trek was that of Trichardt and the Van Rensburgs. They went tothe north, but the Van Rensburgs were massacred in the most horrible wayby the Kaffirs, and Trichardt's party reached Delagoa Bay afterindescribable sufferings in a poverty-stricken condition, only to diethere of malarial fever. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: Theal, _History of the Boers_, page 64. ]

[Footnote 5: _Oceana_, page 34. ]

[Footnote 6: Theal, page 62. ]

[Footnote 7: Theal, 102. --Cachet. ]

[Footnote 8: 6 & 7, William IV. , ch. 57. ]

THE FOUNDING OF NATAL. 

[Sidenote: Murder of Piet Retief. ]

The second trek was equally unfortunate. Piet Retief had duly paid forand obtained possession from Dingaan, chief of the Zulus, of that tractof territory now known as Natal, the latter, incited by some Englishmen, treacherously murdered him and his party on the 6th February, 1838; 66Boers and 30 of their followers perished. The Great Trek thus lost itsmost courageous and noble-minded leader. [9] Dingaan then sent two ofhis armies, and they overcame the women and children and the aged atBoesmans River (Blaauw-krantz), where the village of Weenen now stands;282 white people and 252 servants were massacred. 

Towards the end of the year we entered the land of this criminal with asmall commando of 464 men, and on the 16th December, 1838--since knownas "Dingaan's Day, " the proudest in our history--we overthrew themilitary might of the Zulus, consisting of 10, 000 warriors, and burntDingaan's chief kraal. 

[Sidenote: No extension of British territory. ]

[10] After that we settled down peaceably in Natal, and established anew Republic. The territory had been purchased with our money andbaptised with our blood. But the Republic was not permitted to remain inpeace for long. The Colonial Office was in pursuit. The Government firstof all decided upon a military occupation of Natal, for, as GovernorNapier wrote to Lord Russell on the 22nd June, 1840, "it was apparentlythe fixed determination of Her Majesty's Government not to extend HerColonial possessions in this quarter of the Globe. " The only object ofthe military occupation was to crush the Boers, as the Governor, SirGeorge Napier, undisguisedly admitted in his despatch to Lord Glenelg, of the 16th January, 1838. The Boers were to be prevented from obtainingammunition, and to be forbidden to establish an independent Republic. Bythese means he hoped to put a stop to the emigration. Lord Stanleyinstructed Governor Napier on the 10th April, 1842, to cut the emigrantBoers off from all communication, and to inform them that the BritishGovernment would assist the savages against them, and would treat themas rebels. 

Twice we successfully withstood the military occupation; more Englishperished while in flight from drowning than fell by our bullets. 

Commissioner Cloete was sent later to annex the young Republic as areward for having redeemed it for civilisation. 

[Sidenote: Protest of Natal]

[11] Annexation, however, only took place under strong protest. On the21st February, 1842, the Volksraad of Maritzburg, under the chairmanshipof Joachim Prinsloo, addressed the following letter to GovernorNapier:--

 We know that there is a God, who is the Ruler of heaven and earth, and who has power, and is willing to protect the injured, though weaker, against oppressors. In Him we put our trust, and in the justice of our cause; and should it be His will that total destruction be brought upon us, our wives and children, and everything we possess, we will with due submission acknowledge to have deserved from Him, but not from men. We are aware of the power of Great Britain, and it is not our object to defy that power; but at the same time we cannot allow that might instead of right shall triumph, without having employed all our means to oppose it. 

[Sidenote: The Boer women]

[12] The Boer women of Maritzburg informed the British Commissionerthat, sooner than subject themselves again to British sway, they wouldwalk barefoot over the Drakensberg to freedom or to death. [13] And theywere true to their word, as the following incident proves. AndriesPretorius, our brave leader, had ridden through to Grahamstown, hundredsof miles distant, in order to represent the true facts of our case toGovernor Pottinger. He was unsuccessful, for he was obliged to returnwithout a hearing from the Governor, who excused himself under thepretext that he had no time to receive Pretorius. When the latterreached the Drakensberg, on his return, he found nearly the wholepopulation trekking over the mountains away from Natal and away fromBritish sway. His wife was lying ill in the waggon, and his daughter hadbeen severely hurt by the oxen which she was forced to lead. 

[Sidenote: Suffering in Natal]

Sir Harry Smith, who succeeded Pottinger, thus described the conditionof the emigrant Boers:--"They were exposed to a state of misery which hehad never before seen equalled, except in Massena's invasion ofPortugal. The scene was truly heart-rending. "

This is what we had to suffer at the hands of the British Government inconnection with Natal. 

We trekked back over the Drakensberg to the Free State, where someremained, but others wandered northwards over the Vaal River. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 9: Theal, pages 104--130. ]

[Footnote 10: Theal, 169. ]

[Footnote 11: Theal, 155. ]

[Footnote 12: Theal, 179. ]

[Footnote 13: Theal, 244. ]

THE ORANGE FREE STATE. 

[Sidenote: Boomplaats]

[14] Giving effect to Law 6 and 7, William IV. , ch. 57, the Englishappointed a Resident in the Free State. Pretorius, however, gave him 48hours' notice to quit the Republic. Thereupon Sir Harry Smith mobilisedan army, chiefly consisting of blacks, against us white people, andfought us at Boomplaats, on the 29th August, 1848. After an obstinatestruggle a Boer named Thomas Dreyer was caught by the blacks of Smith'sarmy, and to the shame of English reputation, was killed by the EnglishGovernor for no other crime than that he was once, though years before, a British subject, and had now dared to fight against Her Majesty'sFlag. 

Another murder and deed of shame in South Africa's account with England!

[Sidenote: Annexation of the Orange Free State]

In the meantime Sir Harry Smith had annexed the Free State as the"Orange River Sovereignty, " on the pretext that four-fifths of theinhabitants favoured British dominion, and were only intimidated by thepower of Pretorius from manifesting their wishes. 

[Sidenote: Moshesh]

But the British Resident soon came into collision with Moshesh, thegreat and crafty head chieftain of the Basutos. 

The Boers were called up to assist, but only 75 responded out of the1, 000 who were called up. The English had then to eat the leek. TheResident informed his Government that the fate of the Orange RiverSovereignty depended upon Andries Pretorius, the very man on whose headSir Harry Smith had put a price of £2, 000. Earl Grey censured andabandoned both Sir Harry Smith and the Resident, Major Warden, saying inhis despatch to the Governor dated 15th December, 1851, that the BritishGovernment had annexed the country on the understanding that theinhabitants had generally desired it. But if they would not support theBritish Government, which had only been established in their interests, and if they wished to be freed from that authority, there was no longerany use in continuing it. 

[Sidenote: The Orange Sovereignty once more a Republic. ]

The Governor was clearly given to understand by the British Governmentthat there was in future to be no interference in any of the wars whichmight take place between the different tribes and the inhabitants ofindependent states beyond the Colonial boundaries, no matter howsanguinary such wars might happen to be. 

In other words, as Froude says, [15] "In 1852 we had discovered that warswith the Natives and wars with the Dutch were expensive and useless, that sending troops out and killing thousands of Natives was an odd wayof protecting them. We resolved then to keep within our own territories, to meddle no more beyond the Orange River, and to leave the Dutch andthe Natives to settle their differences among themselves. "

And again: [16] "Grown sick at last of enterprises which led neither tohonour nor peace, we resolved, in 1852, to leave Boers, Kaffirs, Basutos, and Zulus to themselves, and make the Orange River the boundaryof British responsibilities. We made formal treaties with the two DutchStates, binding ourselves to interfere no more between them and theNatives, and to leave them either to establish themselves as a barrierbetween ourselves and the interior of Africa, or to sink, as wasconsidered most likely, in an unequal struggle with warlike tribes, bywhom they were infinitely outnumbered. "

The administration of the Free State cost the British taxpayer too much. There was an idea, too, that if enough rope were given to the Boer hewould hang himself. 

A new Governor, Sir George Cathcart, was sent out with two SpecialCommissioners to give effect to the new policy. A new Treaty betweenEngland and the Free State was signed, by which full independence wasguaranteed to the Republic, the British Government undertaking at thesame time not to interfere with any of the Native tribes north of theOrange River. 

As Cathcart remarked in his letters--the Sovereignty bubble had burst, and the silly Sovereignty farce was played out. 

[Sidenote: The Diamond Fields]

[17] It must not be forgotten that as long as the Free State was Englishterritory it was supposed to include that strip of ground now known asKimberley and the Diamond Fields; English title deeds had been issuedduring the Orange River Sovereignty in respect of the ground inquestion, which was considered to belong to the Sovereignty, and to beunder the jurisdiction of one of the Sovereignty Magistrates. At thereestablishment of the Free State it consequently became a part of theOrange Free State. 

[Sidenote: The Basutos. ]

Not fifteen years had elapsed since the Convention between England andthe Free State before it was broken by the English. It had been solemnlystipulated that England would not interfere in Native affairs north ofthe Orange River. The Basutos had murdered the Freestaters, plunderedthem, ravished their wives, and committed endless acts of violence. After a bitter struggle of three years, the Freestaters had succeeded ininflicting a well-merited chastisement on the Basutos, when the Britishintervened in 1869 in favour of the Natives, notwithstanding the factthat they had reiterated their declaration of non-interference in theAliwal Convention. 

[Sidenote: The Diamond Fields. ]

[18] To return to the Diamond Fields, as Froude remarks: "The ink on theTreaty of Aliwal was scarcely dry when diamonds were discovered in largequantities in a district which we had ourselves treated as part of theOrange Territory. " Instead of honestly saying that the BritishGovernment relied on its superior strength, and on this ground demandedthe territory in question, which contained the richest diamond fields inthe world, it hypocritically pretended that the real reason of itsdepriving the Free State of the Diamond Fields was that they belonged toa Native, notwithstanding the fact that this contention was falsifiedby the judgment of the English Courts. [19] "There was a notion also, "says Froude, "that the finest diamond mine in the world ought not to belost to the British Empire. "

The ground was thereupon taken from the Boers, and "from that day noBoer in South Africa has been able to trust to English promises. "

Later, when Brand went to England, the British Government acknowledgedits guilt and paid £90, 000 for the richest diamond fields in the world, a sum which scarcely represents the daily output of the mines. 

But notwithstanding the Free State Convention, notwithstanding therenewed promises of the Aliwal Convention[20]--the Free State was forcedto suffer a third breach of the Convention at the hands of the English. Ten thousand rifles were imported into Kimberley through the CapeColony, and sold there to the natives who encircled and menaced the twoDutch Republics. [21] General Sir Arthur Cunynghame, the BritishCommander-in-Chief in South Africa, admits that 400, 000 guns were soldto Kaffirs during his term of office. Protests from the Transvaal andthe Free State were of no avail. [22] And when the Free State in theexercise of its just rights stopped waggons laden with guns on their waythrough its territory, it was forced to pay compensation to the BritishGovernment. 

"The Free State, " says the historian Froude, "paid the money, but paidit under protest, with an old-fashioned appeal to the God ofRighteousness, whom, strange to say, they believed to be a reality. "

It seems thus that there is no place for the God of Righteousness inEnglish policy. 

So far we have considered our Exodus from the Cape Colony, and the wayin which we were deprived of Natal and the Free State by England. Nowfor the case of the Transvaal. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 14: Theal, 256-64. Hofstede. ]

[Footnote 15: _Oceana_, page 31. ]

[Footnote 16: _Oceana_, page 36. ]

[Footnote 17: Froude, _Oceana_. Hofstede. ]

[Footnote 18: _Oceana_, page 41. ]

[Footnote 19: _Oceana_, page 40. ]

[Footnote 20: _Oceana_, page 42. ]

[Footnote 21: Cunynghame, page XI. ]

[Footnote 22: _Oceana_, page 42. ]

THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. 

The disastrous fate of the Trichardt Trek has already been told. TheTrichardts found the Transvaal overrun by the warriors of Moselikatse, the King of the Matabele and father of Lobengula. The other tribes ofthe Transvaal were his "dogs, " according to the Kaffir term. 

[Sidenote: Moselikatse. ]

As soon as he heard of the approach of the emigrant Boers he sent out anarmy to exterminate them. This army succeeded in cutting off andmurdering one or two stragglers, but it was defeated at Vechtkop by thesmall laager of Sarel Celliers, where the Boer women distinguishedthemselves by deeds of striking heroism. 

Shortly afterwards the emigrant Boers journeyed across the Vaal River, and after two battles drove Moselikatse and his hordes across theLimpopo right into what is now Matabeleland. Andries Pretorius had comeinto the Transvaal after the Annexation of Natal, and lived therequietly, notwithstanding the price which had been put on his head afterBoomplaats. The British Resident in the Free State, which at this timestill belonged to England, was compelled to admit in a letter to theEnglish Governor that the fate of the Free State depended upon theselfsame Pretorius. It was owing to his influence that Moshesh had notkilled off the English soldiers. People had decided in England--to quoteFroude once more--to abandon the Africanders and the Kaffirs beyond theborders to their fate, in the hope that the Kaffirs would exterminatethe Africanders. 

[Sidenote: The Sand River Convention. ]

According to Molesworth, the English member of Parliament, the ColonialOffice was delighted when the Governor received a letter in 1851 fromAndries Pretorius, Commandant-General of the Transvaal Boers, in whichhe offered on behalf of his people to enter into negotiations with theBritish Government for a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. [23] The priceput on his head was promptly cancelled, and when Sir Harry Smith wasrecalled in disgrace, Governor Cathcart was sent out to recognise theindependence of the Boers. The Aberdeen Ministry declared through itsrepresentative in the House of Commons that they regretted havingcrossed the Orange River, as the Boers were hostile to British rule, andthat Lord Grey had permitted it out of deference to the views of SirHarry Smith, against his own better judgment and convictions. Thispolicy was almost unanimously endorsed by the House of Commons. 

The proposal of Pretorius was then accepted, and two AssistantCommissioners, Hogge and Owen, were sent out with Governor Cathcart, andmet the Boer representatives at Sand River, a meeting which resulted inthe Sand River Convention, respectively signed by both the contractingparties. 

In this Convention, as in the later Free State Treaty, the TransvaalBoers were guaranteed in the fullest way against interference orhindrance on the part of Great Britain, either in regard to themselvesor the natives, to whom it was mutually agreed that the sale of firearmsand ammunition should be strictly forbidden. The British Commissionersreported that the recognition of the independence of the Transvaal Boerswould secure great advantages, as it would ensure their friendship andprevent any union with Moshesh. It would also be a guarantee againstslavery, and would provide for the extradition of criminals. [24] On the13th May, 1852, great satisfaction was expressed by the Governor, SirGeorge Cathcart, in his proclamation that one of the first acts of hisadministration was to approve and fully confirm the Sand RiverConvention. On the 24th June, 1852, the Colonial Secretary alsosignified his approval of the Convention. 

[Sidenote: Recognition of the South African Republic by Foreign Powers. ]

The Republic was now in possession of a Convention, which from thenature of its provisions seemed to promise a peaceful future. Inaddition to Great Britain it was recognised in Holland, France, Germany, Belgium, and especially in the United States of America. The AmericanSecretary of State at Washington, writing to President Pretorius on the19th November, 1870, said:--"That his Government, while heartilyacknowledging the Sovereignty of the Transvaal Republic, would be readyto take any steps which might be deemed necessary for that purpose. "

But no reliance could be placed on England's word, even though it wasembodied in a Convention duly signed and ratified, for when the DiamondFields were discovered, barely seventeen years later, England claimed aportion of Transvaal territory next to that part which had already beenwrested from the Free State. Arbitration was decided upon. As theArbitrators could not agree, the Umpire, Governor Keate, gave judgmentagainst the Transvaal. Thereupon it appeared that the English Arbitratorhad bought 12, 000 morgen (of the ground in dispute) from the NativeChief Waterboer for a mere song, and also that Governor Keate hadaccepted Waterboer as a British subject, which was contrary to theConvention. Even Dr. Moffat, who was no friend of the Boers, entered aprotest in a letter to the _Times_, on the ground that the territory inquestion had all along been the property of the Transvaal. 

[Sidenote: Sale of guns to Natives. ]

But this was only one of the breaches of the Convention. When the400, 000 guns, about which Cunynghame and Moodie testify, were sold tothe Kaffirs, the Transvaal lodged a strong protest in 1872 with the CapeHigh Commissioner. Their only satisfaction was an insolent reply fromSir Henry Barkly. 

[Sidenote: Annexation of the Transvaal. ]

As a crowning act in these deeds of shame came the Annexation of theTransvaal by Shepstone on the 12th April, 1877. Sir Bartle Frere wassent out as Governor to Cape Town by Lord Carnarvon to carry out theconfederation policy of the latter. Shepstone was also sent to theTransvaal to annex that State, in case the consent of the Volksraad orthat of the majority of the inhabitants could be obtained. The Volksraadprotested against the Annexation. The President protested. Out of apossible 8, 000 burghers, 6, 800 protested. But all in vain. 

Bishop Colenso declared that: [25] "The sly and underhand way in whichthe Transvaal has been annexed appears to be unworthy of the Englishname. "

The Free State recorded its deepest regret at the Annexation. 

Even Gladstone, in expressing his regret, admitted that England had inthe Transvaal acted in such a way as to use the free subjects of akingdom to oppress the free subjects of a Republic, and to compel themto accept a citizenship which they did not wish to have. 

But it was all of no avail. 

Sir Garnet Wolseley declared: "As long as the sun shines the Transvaalwill remain British Territory. " He also stated that the Vaal River wouldflow backwards to its source over the Drakensberg before England wouldgive up the Transvaal. 

[Sidenote: Pretexts for the Annexation. ]

Shepstone's chief pretexts for the Annexation were that the Transvaalcould not subdue Secoecoeni, and that the Zulus threatened to overpowerthe Transvaal. As far as Secoecoeni is concerned, he had shortly beforesued for peace, and the Transvaal Republic had fined him 2, 000 head ofcattle. With regard to the Zulus, the threatened danger was never feltby the Republic. Four hundred burghers had crushed the Zulu power in1838, and the burghers had crowned Panda, Cetewayo's father, in 1840. 

Sir Bartle Frere acknowledged in a letter to Sir Robert Herbert dated12th January, 1879, that he could not understand how it was that theZulus had left Natal unmolested for so long, until he found out thatthe Zulus had been thoroughly subdued by the Boers during Dingaan'stime. Just before the Annexation a small patrol of Boers had pursued theChief Umbeline into the very heart of Zululand. But Bishop Colensopoints out clearly what a fraudulent stalking horse the Zulu difficultywas. There had been a dispute of some years standing between theTransvaal and the Zulus about a strip of territory along the border, which had been claimed and occupied by the Boers since 1869. Thequestion was referred to Shepstone before the Annexation, while he wasstill in Natal, and he gave a direct decision against the Boers, and infavour of the Zulus. There was thus no cause on that account for thefear of a Zulu attack upon the Transvaal. But scarcely had Shepstonebecome administrator of the Transvaal when he declared the ground indispute to be British territory, and discovered that there was thestrongest evidence for the contention of the Boers that the Zulus had noright to the ground. Bulwer, the Governor of Natal, appointed a BoundaryCommission, which decided in favour of the Zulus, but Shepstonevehemently opposed their verdict, and Bartle Frere and the HighCommissioner (Wolseley) followed him blindly. [26] The result was thatEngland sent an ultimatum to the Zulus, and the Zulu War took place, which lowered the prestige of England among the Natives of South Africa. 

It will thus be seen that Shepstone's two chief reasons for theAnnexation were devoid of foundation. 

It was naturally difficult for the Secretary of State to justify hisinstructions that the Annexation of the Transvaal was only to takeplace in case a majority of the inhabitants favoured such a course, inface of the fact that 6, 800 out of 8, 000 burghers had protested againstit. 

But both Shepstone and Lord Carnarvon declared without a shadow of proofthat the signatures of the protesting petitions were obtained underthreats of violence. The case, indeed, was exactly the reverse. When themeeting was held at Pretoria to sign this petition, Shepstone caused thecannons to be pointed at the assemblage. As if this were not enough, heissued a menacing proclamation against the signing of the petition. 

When these pretexts were thus disposed of, they relied on the fact thatthe Annexation was a _fait accompli_. 

Delegates were sent to England to protest against the Annexation, butLord Carnarvon told them that he would only be misleading them if heheld out any hope of restitution. Gladstone afterwards endorsed this bysaying that he could not advise the Queen to withdraw her Sovereigntyfrom the Transvaal. 

When it was represented that the Annexation was a deliberate breach ofthe Sand River Convention, Sir Bartle Frere replied, in 1879, that ifthey wished to go back to the Sand River Convention, they might just aswell go back to the Creation!

It is necessary here not to lose sight of the fact that the ground, which according to the Keate award in 1870 had been declared to liebeyond the borders of the Republic, was now included by Shepstone asbeing a part of the Transvaal. 

There were, however, other matters which under Republicanadministration were branded as wrong, but which under English rule wereperfectly right. In the Secoecoeni War under the Republic the BritishHigh Commissioner had protested against the use of the Swazies andVolunteers by the Republic in conducting the campaign. 

Under British administration the war was carried on at first by regularsonly, but when these were defeated by the Kaffirs, an army of Swazies, as well as Volunteers, was collected. The number of the former can begathered from the fact that 500 Swazies were killed. The atrocitiescommitted by these Swazi allies of the English on the people ofSecoecoeni's tribe were truly awful. 

Bishop Colenso, who condemned this incident, said, with regard to theresults of the Annexation of the Republic, that the Zululand difficulty, as well as that with Secoecoeni, was the direct consequence of theunfortunate Annexation of the Transvaal, which would not have happenedif we had not taken possession of the country like a lot of freebooters, partly by "trickery, " partly by "bullying. " Elsewhere he said: "And inthis way we annexed the Transvaal, and that act brought as its Nemesisthe Zulu difficulty. "

That the British Government had all along considered the Zulus as ameans of annihilating the Transvaal when a favourable opportunityoccurred, is clear from a letter which the High Commissioner, Sir BartleFrere, wrote to General Ponsonby, in which he says:--[27] "That whilethe Boer Republic was a rival and semi-hostile power, it was a Natalweakness rather to pet the Zulus as one might a tame wolf who onlydevoured one's neighbours' sheep. We always remonstrated, but ratherfeebly, and now that both flocks belong to us, we are rather embarrassedin stopping the wolfs ravages. "

And again in a letter to Sir Robert Herbert:--[28] "The Boers wereaggressive, the English were not; and were well inclined to help theZulus against the Boers. I have been shocked to find how very close tothe wind the predecessors of the present Government here have sailed insupporting the Zulus against Boer aggression. Mr. John Dunn, still asalaried official of this Government, thinking himself bound to explainhis own share in supplying rifles to the Zulus in consequence of therevelations in a late trial of a Durban gun-runner, avows that he did sowith the knowledge, if not the consent, and at the suggestion of (naminga high Colonial official) in Natal. There can be no doubt that Natalsympathy was strongly with the Zulus as against the Boers, and, what isworse, is so still. "

Under such circumstances did the Annexation take place. The English didnot scruple to make use of Kaffir aid against the Boers, as atBoomplaats, and it was brought home in every possible way to the BritishNation that a great wrong had been committed here; but even the HighCommissioner, though he heard the words issue from our bleeding hearts, wished that he had brought some artillery in order to disperse us, andmisrepresented us beyond measure. 

Full of hope we said to ourselves if only the Queen of England and theEnglish people knew that in the Transvaal a people were being oppressed, they would never suffer it. 

[Sidenote: The War of Freedom. ]

But we had now to admit that it was of no use appealing to England, because there was no one to hear us. Trusting in the Almighty God ofrighteousness and justice, we armed ourselves for an apparently hopelessstruggle in the firm conviction that whether we conquered or whether wedied, the sun of freedom in South Africa would arise out of the morningmists. With God's all-powerful aid we gained the victory, and for a timeat least it seemed as if our liberty was secure. 

At Bronkorst Spruit, at Laing's Nek, at Ingogo, and at Majuba, God gaveus victory, although in each case the British troopers outnumbered us, and were more powerfully armed than ourselves. 

After these victories had given new force to our arguments, the BritishGovernment, under the leadership of Gladstone, a man whom we shall neverforget, decided to cancel the Annexation, and to restore to us ourviolated rights. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 23: Molesworth. ]

[Footnote 24: Theal, 305. ]

[Footnote 25: 30th April, 1877, Letter to the Rev. La Touche. ]

[Footnote 26: Martineau, _The Transvaal Trouble_, page 76. ]

[Footnote 27: Martineau, _The Transvaal Trouble_, page 69. ]

[Footnote 28: _The Transvaal Trouble_, page 76. ]

CONVENTIONS OF 1881 AND 1884. 

[Sidenote: Pretoria Convention. ]

An ordinary person would have thought that the only upright way ofcarrying a policy of restitution into effect would have been for theBritish Government to have returned to the provisions of the Sand RiverConvention. If the Annexation was wrong in itself--without taking theBoer victories into consideration--then it ought to have been abolishedwith all its consequences, and there ought to have been a _restitutio inintegrum_ of that Republic; that is to say, the Boers ought to have beenplaced in exactly the same position as they were in before theAnnexation. But what happened? With a magnanimity which the Englishpress and English orators are never tired of vaunting, they gave us backour country, but the violation of the Sand River Convention remainedunredressed. Instead of a sovereign freedom, we obtained free internaladministration, subject to the suzerain power of Her Majesty over theRepublic. This occurred by virtue of the Convention of Pretoria, thepreamble of which bestowed self-government on the Transvaal State withthe express reservation of suzerainty. The articles of that Conventionendeavoured to establish a _modus vivendi_ between such self-governmentand the aforesaid suzerainty. Under this bi-lateral arrangement theRepublic was governed for three years by two heterogeneousprinciples--that of representative self-government, and thatrepresented by the British Agent. This system was naturally unworkable;it was also clear that the arrangement of 1881 was not to be consideredas final. 

[Sidenote: The London Convention. ]

The suzerainty was above all an absurdity which was not possible toreconcile with practical efficacy. So with the approval of the BritishGovernment a Deputation went to London in 1883, in order to get thestatus of the Republic altered, and to substitute a new Convention forthat of Pretoria. The Deputation proposed to return to the position aslaid down by the Sand River Convention, and that was in fact the onlyupright and statesmanlike arrangement possible. But according to theevidence of one of the witnesses on the British side, the Rev. D. P. Faure, the Ministry suffered from a very unwholesome dread ofParliament; so it would not agree to this, and submitted a counterproposal (see Appendix A. ), which eventually was accepted by theDeputation, and the conditions of which are to-day of the greatestimportance to us. 

This Draft was constructed out of the Pretoria Convention with suchalterations as were designed to make it acceptable to the Deputation. The preamble under which complete self-government, subject to thesuzerainty, was granted to the Republic was deliberately erased by LordDerby, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, so that the suzeraintynaturally lapsed when the Draft was eventually accepted. In order tomake it perfectly clear that the status of the Republic was put uponanother basis, the title "Transvaal State" was altered to that of the"South African Republic. " All articles in the Pretoria Convention whichgave the British Government any authority in the internal affairs ofthis Republic were done away with. As far as foreign affairs wereconcerned, a great and far-reaching change was made. It was stipulatedin Article 2 of the Pretoria Convention that "Her Majesty reserves toherself, her heirs and successors (_a_), the right from time to time toappoint a British Resident in and for the said State, with such dutiesand functions as are hereinafter defined; (_b_), the right to movetroops through the said State in time of war or in case of theapprehension of immediate war between the Suzerain Power and any ForeignState or Native tribe in South Africa; and (_c_) the control of theexternal relations of the said State, including the conclusion oftreaties and the conduct of diplomatic intercourse with Foreign Powers, such intercourse to be carried on through Her Majesty's diplomatic andconsular officers abroad. "

This was superseded by Article 4 of the Convention of London, which wasto the following effect:--

 "The South African Republic will conclude no treaty or engagement with any State or Nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any Native tribe to the eastward or westward of the Republic, until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen. 

 "Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of such treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its completion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain, or any of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa. "

The right of the British Government to exercise control over all ourforeign relations, and to conduct all our diplomatic negotiationsthrough its own Agent, was thus replaced by the far more slender rightof approving or disapproving of our treaties and conventions _after theywere completed_, and then only when it affected the interests of GreatBritain or Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa. 

[Sidenote: Status of the Republic. ]

It was this Article 4 which gave an appearance of truth (and anappearance only) to Lord Derby's declaration in the House of Lords thatalthough he had omitted the term of suzerainty, the substance thereofremained. It would have been more correct to have said that owing to thelapse of suzerainty the South African Republic no longer fell under thehead of a semi-suzerain State, but that it had become a free, independent, sovereign international State, the sovereignty of which wasonly limited by the restriction contained in Article 4 of theConvention. Sovereignty need not of necessity be absolute. Belgium is asovereign international State, although it is bound to observe acondition of permanent neutrality. The South African Republic fallsundoubtedly under this category of States, the sovereignty of which islimited in one or other defined direction. But the fact of itssovereignty is nevertheless irrefutable. It will be pointed out laterhow this position, which is undoubtedly the correct one, has beenconsistently upheld by the Government of the South African Republic, butit is necessary now to revert to the historical development. 

CAPITALISTIC JINGOISM. 

FIRST PERIOD. 

[Sidenote: The gold fields. ]

In 1886 gold was discovered in great quantities and in different partsof the South African Republic, and with that discovery our peopleentered upon a new phase of their history. The South African Republicwas to develope within a few years from a condition of great povertyinto a rich and prosperous State, a country calculated in every respectto awaken and inflame the greed of the Capitalistic speculator. Within afew years the South African Republic was ranked among the firstgold-producing countries of the world. The bare veldt of hitherto wasoverspread with large townships inhabited by a speculative and bustlingclass brought together from all corners of the earth. The Boers, who hadhitherto followed pastoral and hunting pursuits, were now called upon tofulfil one of the most difficult tasks in the world, namely, themanagement of a complicated administration, and the government of alarge digging population, which had sprung up suddenly under the mostextraordinary circumstances. And how have they acquitted themselves ofthe task? We quote the following from a brilliant pamphlet by OliveSchreiner, who possesses a deeper insight into the true condition ofaffairs in South Africa than has been vouchsafed to any other writer onthe same subject:--

 [29] "We put it to all generous and just spirits, whether of statesmen or thinkers, whether the little Republic does not deserve our sympathy, which wise minds give to all who have to deal with new and complex problems, where the past experience of humanity has not marked out a path--and whether, if we touch the subject at all, it is not necessary that it should be in that large impartial, truth-seeking spirit in which humanity demands we should approach all great social difficulties and questions?"

 "It is sometimes said that when one stands looking down from the edge of this hill at the great mining camp of Johannesburg stretching beneath, with its heaps of white sand and _débris_ mountain high, its mining chimneys belching forth smoke, with its seventy thousand Kaffirs and its eighty thousand men and women, white or coloured, of all nationalities, gathered here in the space of a few years on the spot where, fifteen years ago, the Boer's son guided his sheep to the water and the Boer's wife sat alone at evening at the house door to watch the sunset, we are looking upon one of the most wonderful spectacles on earth. And it is wonderful; but as we look at it the thought always arises within us of something more wonderful yet--the marvellous manner in which a little nation of simple folk, living in peace in the land they loved, far from the rush of cities and the concourse of men, have risen to the difficulties of their condition; how they, without instruction in statecraft or traditionary rules of policy, have risen to face their great difficulties, and have sincerely endeavoured to meet them in a large spirit, and have largely succeeded. Nothing but that curious and wonderful instinct for statecraft and the organisation and arrangement of new social conditions which seem inherent as a gift of the blood to all those peoples who took their rise in the little deltas on the north-east of the Continent of Europe where the English and Dutch peoples alike took their rise could have made it possible. We do not say that the Transvaal Republic has among its guides and rulers a Solon or a Lycurgus, but it has to-day, among the men guiding its destiny, men of brave and earnest spirit, who are seeking manfully and profoundly to deal with the great problems before them in a wide spirit of humanity and justice. And we do again repeat that the strong sympathy of all earnest and thoughtful minds, not only in Africa, but in England, should be with them. "

If one compares the gold fields of the Witwatersrand with those of othercountries, it is certain that the former can claim to be the bestgoverned mining area in the world. This is the almost unanimous verdictof people who have had a lengthy experience of the gold fields ofCalifornia, Australia, and Klondyke. 

As far as South Africa is concerned, it is only necessary to instancethe diamond fields of Griqualand West when they were directlyadministered by the British Government. They then afforded a continualspectacle of rebellion, rioting, and indescribable uncertainty of, anddanger to, life and property. 

In Appendix B. Are certain extracts from the evidence of eye witnessesas to the chaos which characterised the condition of the diamond fieldswhen under British rule--a condition which differs from that of theWitwatersrand gold fields as night from day. Reference will be madelater on to the administration of the gold fields of the South AfricanRepublic. For the present it is necessary to glance at certain forceswhich had been developed on the diamond fields of the Cape Colony, andwhich have introduced a new factor of overwhelming importance into theSouth African situation. 

[Sidenote: Capitalism. ]

The development of British policy in South Africa had hitherto beeninfluenced at different times, and in a greater or less degree, by thespirit of Jingoism, and by that zeal for Annexation which is socharacteristic of the trading instincts of the race. It was, however, apolicy that had been conducted in other respects on continuous lines, and it might be justified by the argument that it was necessary in theinterests of the Empire. But Capitalism was the new factor which wasabout to play such an important _rôle_ in the history of South Africa. The natural differences in men find their highest expression in thevarieties of influence which one man exercises over another; thisinfluence can either be of a religious, moral, political, or purelymaterial nature. Material influence generally takes the form of money, or the financial nexus, as an English writer has termed it. An unusualcombination of this form of influence leads to Capitalism just as anunusual combination of political influence leads to tyranny, and anunusual combination of religious influence to hierarchical despotism. Capitalism is the modern peril which threatens to become as dangerous tomankind as the political tyranny of the old Eastern world and thereligious despotism of the Middle Ages were in their respective eras. 

In a part of the world so rich in minerals of all descriptions as theTransvaal, it is natural that Capitalism should play a considerable_rôle_. Unfortunately, in South Africa it has from the very firstattempted to go far beyond its legitimate scope; it has endeavoured togain political power, and to make all other forms of government andinfluence subservient to its own ends. The measure of its success can beclearly gauged by the fact that all South Africa is standing to-day onthe brink of a great precipice, and may be hurled into the abyss beforethe ink on these pages is dry. 

[Sidenote: Mr. Cecil Rhodes]

The spirit of Capitalism found its incarnation in Mr. Cecil Rhodes, whowas able to amalgamate the pressing and conflicting interests of theDiamond Fields into the one great Corporation of which he is the head. 

Although he probably had no exceptional aptitude for politics, he wasirresistibly drawn towards them by the stress of his interests. By meansof his financial influence, together with a double allowance ofelasticity of conscience, he succeeded so far as to become PrimeMinister of the Cape Colony, and was powerfully and solidly supported bythe Africander party. The Africanders believed in him because they werereally and deeply imbued with the necessity of the co-operation andfusion of the two white races in South Africa, and he, as a loyalEnglishman, but fully possessing the confidence of ColonialAfricanderdom, seemed to them just the very person to realise theirideal. 

To a careful observer the alliance between Africanderdom and Capitalismwas bound to lead to a rupture sooner or later. Deeply rooted and purenational sentiment as well as burning conviction form the basis ofAfricander Policy, and it was obvious that in the long run it would bediscovered that this policy could never be made subservient to purelyfinancial interests. 

[Sidenote: Jingoism. ]

But there was another factor. There was that debased form of patriotismcalled Jingoism. It is a form of party politics without solidconvictions or real beliefs, which puffs itself out with big words, andwith the froth of high-sounding ideas and principles. It is a policy, nevertheless, which appeals most strongly to the instincts ofself-interest and to the illegal appropriation of other people'sproperty. It revels in the lust of boasting, so deeply ingrained inhuman nature. In a word, it is a policy which is in direct opposition tothe true spirit of religion, to the altruistic ideals of humanity, andto that sentiment of humility and moderation which is the natural basisof all morality. 

[Sidenote: Alliance between Capitalism and Jingoism. ]

Here, indeed, were the elements of an enduring alliance--an alliancebetween Capitalism, with its great material influence, but barren of anyone single exalted idea or principle on the one hand, and Jingoism, sterile, empty, soulless, but with a rich stock-in-trade of bombasticideas and principles, prompted by the most selfish aspirations, on theother hand. 

The one was eminently calculated to form the complement of the other, thus creating a natural alliance which is rapidly becoming a menace, allthe world over, to the best and most enduring interests of humanity. 

This Capitalistic Jingoism is the tree from which it is the lot of ourunfortunate South Africa to gather such bitter fruit to-day. 

Mr. Rhodes, with that treacherous duplicity which is an enduringcharacteristic of British policy in South Africa, co-operated publicly, and in the closest relationship, with the Colonial Africanders, while hewas secretly fomenting a conspiracy with Jingoism against the CapeAfricanders and the South African Republics. He already had theAfricanders in the Cape Colony under his sway; his aim was now to gainthe same influence in the South African Republic, with its rich goldmines--not so much, perhaps, for himself personally as for Capitalism, with which his interests were so closely identified. In case of success, he would obtain his personal aim, and Capitalism would be absolutelydespotic in South Africa. With an eye to this end he, with otherCapitalists, began in 1892 to foment a political agitation inJohannesburg against the Republic. In a place like Johannesburg, wheredrink is consumed in great quantities, and where the high altitude andthe stress of business all tend to keep people's spirits in a constantstate of excitability, it was easy enough, with the aid of money, tobring about a state of political ferment in a very short time, especially as just that measure of grievances existed to give a colourof truth to the imaginary ones. 

[Sidenote: The National Union. ]

Under these conditions the National Union movement originated in 1892. Its adherents were entirely composed of the creatures and parasites ofthe Capitalists, with a few honest fools and enthusiasts who naturallydid not think deeply enough to discern the aim and the trend of thishypocritical movement. 

The Capitalists at this time certainly kept well in the background, inorder that the movement might have the appearance of being a popularone. The Capitalists of Johannesburg were, however, a theatrical lot, and the desire to play a prominent _rôle_ was too intense to besuppressed for any length of time, so that after the lapse of a coupleof years they naturally took the leading part in the _opera bouffe_agitation which followed. 

[Sidenote: Corruption of the Capitalists. ]

They began, by means of the lowest and most repulsive methods, toundermine the Boer policy in order to gain the mastery of the mininglegislation and administration. They had persuaded themselves and therest of the world that the Boers were as a body corrupt and tainted, sothey armed themselves, with the power of money in order to overthrowthem. 

Lionel Phillips wrote in this spirit on the 16th June, 1894, to Beit inLondon:--[30] "I may here say that, as you of course know, I have nodesire for political rights, and believe as a whole that the communityis not ambitious in this respect. The bewaarplaatsen question will, Ithink, be settled in our favour, but at a cost of about £25, 000. It isproposed to spend a good deal of money in order to secure a betterRaad, but it must be remembered that the spending of money on electionshas, by recent legislation, been made a criminal offence, and the matterwill have to be carefully handled. "

On the 15th July, 1894, he wrote again to the samecorrespondent:--[31] "Our trump card is a fund of £10--15, 000 to improvethe Raad. Unfortunately the companies have no secret service fund. Imust divine away. We don't want to shell out ourselves. "

Here we catch a glimpse behind the scenes, and we observe how theCapitalists in 1894 had already endeavoured to lower and vitiate ourpublic life by methods which did not even recoil before the criminal lawof the land, to say nothing of elementary morality. 

And did they succeed? Were the people and the Volksraad as corrupt asthey thought, and as they still endeavour to make the world believe?Their failure is the best and most complete answer to this calumny. 

If corruption on a large scale, however, failed to ensure the triumph ofCapitalism over the community, the other trump card of Jingoism stillremained. The pulse of the High Commissioner was felt by Mr. LionelPhillips, and what was the answer of Sir Henry Loch, Her Majesty'srepresentative in South Africa? We extract from the same secret letterbook from which we have already quoted the following letter, dated 1stJuly, addressed to Wernher, a member of the influential firm of Wernher, Beit & Co. :--

[Sidenote: (Sir) Henry Loch's indiscretion. ]

[32] "Sir Henry Loch (with whom I had two long private interviews alone)asked me some very pointed questions, such as what arms we had inJohannesburg, whether the population could hold the place for six daysuntil help could arrive, etc. , etc. , and stated plainly that if therehad been three thousand rifles and ammunition here he would certainlyhave come over. "

And so on in the same strain. Sir Henry Loch endorsed the truth of thesestatements two years later by boasting openly in the House of Lordsabout his plans for organising a raid into the South African Republic. 

And all this happened while he (Sir Henry Loch) was the guest of ourGovernment, and engaged in friendly negotiations about the interests ofBritish subjects. To what a depth had British Policy in South Africaalready degenerated. Within two years, however, a deeper abyss was toopen. 

[Sidenote: The conspiracy. ]

The secret conspiracy of the Capitalists and Jingoes to overthrow theSouth African Republic began now to gain ground with great rapidity, forjust at this critical period Mr. Chamberlain became Secretary of Statefor the Colonies. In the secret correspondence of the conspirators, reference is continually made to the Colonial Office in a manner which, taken in connection with later revelations and with a successfulsuppression of the truth, has deepened the impression over the wholeworld that the Colonial Office was privy to, if not an accomplice in, the villainous attack on the South African Republic. 

[Sidenote: The Jameson Raid]

It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the Jameson Raid; the world hasnot yet forgotten how the Administrators of a British province, carryingout a conspiracy headed by the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, attacked the South African Republic with an armed band in order toassist the Capitalist revolution of Johannesburg in overthrowing theBoer Government; how this raid and this revolution were upset by thevigilance of the Boers; how Jameson and his filibusters were handed overto England to stand their trial--although the Boers had the power andthe right to shoot them down as robbers; how the whole gang ofJohannesburg Capitalists pleaded guilty to treason and sedition; how, instead of confiscating all their property, and thus dealing a deathblow to Capitalistic influence in South Africa, the Government dealtmost leniently with them (an act of magnanimity which was rewarded bytheir aiding and abetting a still more dangerous agitation three yearslater). 

[Sidenote: The Parliamentary Commission. ]

Nor has the world forgotten how, at the urgent instance of theAfricander party in the Cape Colony, an investigation into the causes ofthe conflict was held in Westminster; how that investigation degeneratedinto a low attack upon the Government of the sorely maligned and deeplyinjured South African Republic, and how at the last moment, when thetruth was on the point of being revealed, and the conspiracy traced toits fountain head in the British Cabinet, the Commission decided all ofa sudden not to make certain compromising documents public. 

[Sidenote: "Constitutional means. "]

Here we see to what a depth the old great traditions of BritishConstitutionalism had sunk under the influence of the ever-increasingand all-absorbing lust of gold, and in the hands of a sharp-wittedwholesale dealer, who, like Cleon of old, has constituted himself astatesman. Treachery and violence not having been able to attain theirobjects, "Constitutional means" were to be invoked (as Mr. Rhodes openlyboasted before the aforesaid Commission), so as to make CapitalisticJingoism master of the situation in South Africa. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 29: Olive Schreiner, _Words in Season_, page 62. ]

[Footnote 30: Transvaal Green Book No. 1 of 1896. ]

[Footnote 31: Transvaal Green Book No. 1 of 1896. ]

[Footnote 32: Transvaal Green Book No. 1 of 1896. ]

CAPITALISTIC JINGOISM. 

SECOND PERIOD. 

[Sidenote: National sentiment in South Africa kindled by the JamesonRaid. ]

The foregoing sketch has shown how deeply our people felt and resentedthe wrong that was done to them. It was to be expected that such atreacherous attack on the Republics, emanating from their own leader, would awaken the Africanders even in the remotest districts, and wouldbring fresh energy into the arena of politics. To give an instance ofthe measure of the feeling which had been quickened by the raid, a shortextract is given below from an article published in the organ of theAfricander party, _Our Land_, a few months after the Raid, an articlewhich undoubtedly expressed the feeling of Africanders:--

"Has not Providence over-ruled and guided the painful course of eventsin South Africa since the beginning of this year (1896)? Who can doubtit?

"The stab which was intended to paralyse Africanderdom once and for allin the Republics has sent an electric thrill direct to the nationalheart. Africanderdom has awakened to a sense of earnestness andconsciousness which we have not observed since the heroic war forLiberty in 1881. From the Limpopo as far as Cape Town the Second Majubahas given birth to a new inspiration and a new movement amongst ourpeople in South Africa. A new feeling has rushed in huge billows overSouth Africa. The flaccid and cowardly Imperialism, that had alreadybegun to dilute and weaken our national blood, gradually turned asidebefore the new current which permeated our people. Many who, tired ofthe slow development of the national idea, had resigned themselves toImperialism now paused and asked themselves what Imperialism hadproduced in South Africa? Bitterness and race hatred it is true! Sincethe days of Sir Harry Smith and Theophilus Shepstone and Bartle Frere tothe days of Leander Jameson and Cecil Rhodes, Imperialism in SouthAfrica has gone hand in hand with bloodshed and fraud. However wholesomethe effects of Imperialism may be elsewhere, its continual tendency inthis country during all these years has been nothing else but an attemptto force our national life and national character into foreign grooves;and to seal this pressure with blood and tears. .. . This is truly acritical moment in the existence of Africanderdom all over South Africa. Now or never! Now or never the foundation of a wide-embracingnationalism must be laid. The Iron is red hot, and the time for forgingis at hand. .. . 

. .. The partition wall has disappeared. Let us stand manfully by oneanother. The danger has not yet disappeared; on the contrary, never hasthe necessity for a policy of a Colonial and Republican Union beengreater; now the psychological moment has arrived; now our people haveawakened all over South Africa; a new glow illuminates our hearts; letus now lay the foundation stone of a real United South Africa on thesoil of a pure and _all-comprehensive national sentiment_. "

Such language caused the Jingoes to shudder--not because it wasdisloyal, because that it certainly was _not_, but because it provedthat the Jameson Raid had suddenly awakened the Africanders, and thatowing to this defeat of the Jingoes a vista of further and greaterdefeats widened out in the future. The Colonial Africanders wouldcertainly have to be reckoned with, in case an annexation policy werefollowed with regard to the Republics. 

[Sidenote: Victory of the Africander Party in the Cape Parliament. ]

For some time the Jingoes cherished the hope that they would gain themajority in the Cape Parliament under an amended Redistribution Act. TheGeneral Election of 1898 took place, with the result that the Africanderparty obtained a small majority, and later, under a Redistribution Actforced upon them by the Jingoes, the majority of the former wasconsiderably increased. 

[Sidenote: The cry of disloyalty]

Instead of honestly admitting that the Africander victory was thenatural result of the Jameson Raid, the Jingoes began, not only in SouthAfrica, but also in England, to shout that the rule and supremacy ofEngland in South Africa was menaced. 

[Sidenote: The Transvaal must be humiliated. ]

They contended that South Africa would be lost to England unlessenergetic intervention took place without delay, and that this menace toEnglish rule was due to the Republican propaganda which the SouthAfrican Republic had set in motion. That as long as the South AfricanRepublic refused to humiliate itself before British authority, but onthe contrary kept its youthful head on high with national pride, otherparts of South Africa would be inclined to follow its example, and therewould thus be no certainty for British supremacy in this quarter of theglobe. The South African Republic would have to be humiliated and to becrushed into the dust; the Africanders in other parts of South Africawould then abandon their alleged hope of a more extensive RepublicanSouth Africa. 

[Sidenote: The necessity for constitutional means. ]

But how was this humiliation to be brought about, and how, above all, was it to be brought about by those "Constitutional means, " which, sincethe failure of the conspiracy, had become a _sine qua non_?

The new Governor of the Cape Colony and High Commissioner of SouthAfrica, who had enjoyed the distinction of a brilliant universitycareer, who had learnt humility and moderation at the feet of Mr. W. T. Stead, and who had learnt by his experience with the fellaheen in Egypthow to govern the descendants of the Huguenots and the "Beggars of theSea, " would know very well how to evolve "Constitutional means" in orderto humiliate the South African Republic, and to crush it into the dust. 

[Sidenote: The suzerainty. ]

There was at any rate the burning question of suzerainty, which theSouth African Republic had unconsciously and innocently raised in thefollowing way:--

After the Jameson Raid the Volksraad had passed certain laws with a viewof removing some of the causes of that movement, as, for example, thelaw by which dangerous individuals could be expelled from the State, andthe law by which paupers and people suffering from contagious diseasescould be prevented from entering the Republic. [33] These laws weredeclared to be in conflict with Article XIV. Of the London Convention. Violations of Article IV. Were also said to have taken place in regardto certain extradition and other treaties, which had been concludedbetween the South African Republic and Foreign Powers. [34] On the 7thMay, 1897, the Government of the South African Republic dispatched avery important reply to these accusations, in which, after fully statingthe reasons why the Government differed from Her Majesty's Government, an appeal was made for arbitration as being the most suitable method ofsettling the dispute. 

This appeal was couched in the following language:

[Sidenote: The appeal for Arbitration. ]

[35] "While it respects the opinion of Her British Majesty's Government, it takes the liberty, with full confidence in the correctness of its ownviews, to propose to Her British Majesty's Government the principle ofArbitration, with which the honourable the First Volksraad agreed, inthe hope that it will be taken in the conciliatory spirit in which it ismade. It considers that it has every reason for this proposal, the moreso because the principle of Arbitration is already laid down in thatConvention in the only case in which, according to its opinion at thetime, a difference could be foreseen, to wit, with regard to Article I. ;because it has already been proposed by Her British Majesty'sGovernment, and accepted by this Government with regard to thedifference in respect of Article 14 of the Convention arising in thematter of the so-called Coolie question, which was settled byArbitration; because the Right Honourable the Secretary of State, Mr. Chamberlain, himself, in his letter of the 4th September, 1895, to HisExcellency the High Commissioner at Cape Town, favours this principle inthe same question, where he says: 'After 1886, as time went on, themanner in which the law was interpreted and was worked, or was proposedto be worked, gave rise to complaints on the part of the BritishGovernment, and as it seemed impossible to come to an agreement by meansof correspondence, the Marquis of Ripon took what is the approved coursein such cases, of proposing to the South African Republic that thedispute should be referred to Arbitration. This was agreed to . .. , 'because the principle of Arbitration in matters such as this appears tothe Government to be the most impartial, just, and most satisfactory wayout of the existing difficulty, and, lastly, because one of the partiesto a Convention, according to all principles of reasonableness, cannotexpect that his interpretation will be respected by the other party asthe only valid and correct one. And although this Government is firmlyconvinced that a just and impartial decision might be obtained evenbetter in South Africa than anywhere else, it wishes, in view of theconflicting elements, interests, and aspirations which are now apparentin South Africa, and in order to avoid even the appearance that it wouldbe able or desire to exercise influence in order to obtain a decisionfavourable to it, to propose that the President of the Swiss Bondstate, who may be reckoned upon as standing altogether outside the question, and to feel sympathy or antipathy neither for the one party nor for theother, be requested to point out a competent jurist, as has alreadyoften been done in respect of international disputes. The Governmentwould have no objection that the Arbitration be subject to a limitationof time, and gives the assurance now already that it will willinglysubject itself to any decision if such should, contrary to itsexpectation, be given against it. The Government repeats the well-meantwish that this proposal may find favour with Her British Majesty'sGovernment; and inasmuch as the allegations of breaches of theConvention find entrance now even in South Africa, and bring and keepthe feelings more and more in a state of suspense, this Government willbe pleased if it can learn the decision of Her British Majesty'sGovernment as soon as possible. "

[Sidenote: England refuses to arbitrate on ground of suzerainty. ]

To this the British Government replied that according to the Conventionof 1884, taken in conjunction with the preamble of the Convention of1881, the South African Republic was under the suzerainty of HerMajesty, and that it was incompatible with the subordinate position ofthe South African Republic to submit to Arbitration any matters indispute as to the construction of the Convention between it and thesuzerain Power. 

In order to avoid any misunderstanding as to this very remarkabledocument, the exact wording of the British dispatch isgiven:--[36] "Finally, the Government of the South African Republicpropose that all points in dispute between Her Majesty's Government andthemselves relating to the Convention should be referred to Arbitration, the Arbitrator to be nominated by the President of the Swiss Republic. In making this proposal the Government of the South African Republicappear to have overlooked the distinction between the Conventions of1881 and 1884 and an ordinary treaty between two independent Powers, questions arising upon which may properly be the subject of Arbitration. By the Pretoria Convention of 1881 Her Majesty, as Sovereign of theTransvaal Territory, accorded to the inhabitants of that territorycomplete self-government, subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty, herheirs, and successors, upon certain terms and conditions, and subject tocertain reservations and limitations set forth in 33 articles; and bythe London Convention of 1884, Her Majesty, while maintaining thepreamble of the earlier instrument, directed and declared that certainother articles embodied therein should be substituted for the articlesembodied in the Convention of 1881. The articles of the Convention of1881 were accepted by the Volksraad of the Transvaal State, and those ofthe Convention of 1884 by the Volksraad of the South African Republic. Under these Conventions, therefore, Her Majesty holds towards the SouthAfrican Republic the relation of a _suzerain_ who has accorded to thepeople of that Republic self-government upon certain conditions, _and itwould be incompatible with that position to submit to Arbitration theconstruction of the conditions on which she accorded self-government tothe Republic_. "

[Sidenote: Reply of the Transvaal Government. ]

[37] In its celebrated reply of the 16th April, 1898, the Government ofthe South African Republic proved with unanswerable force that thepreamble of the Convention of 1881 had been abolished, that Lord Derbyhad himself in 1884 proposed a draft Convention, in which the preamblewas erased (see Appendix B. ), and that by the ultimate acceptance ofthat proposal, the suzerainty had ceased to exist. 

On this account, as well as for other reasons, it contended that as nosuzerainty existed between the two countries, the objection toArbitration as a means of settling disputes would disappear, and theGovernment reiterated their appeal to have such differences or disputesdisposed of by Arbitration. 

[Sidenote: The object of the suzerainty dispute. ]

Naturally this was exactly what Mr. Chamberlain did not want. He wasopposed to Arbitration dispute, because it would have probably led tothe humiliation of the British and not of the Boer Government. Thesuzerainty question was introduced in the meanwhile as a "ConstitutionalProposal, " which might be used for the purpose of humiliating the SouthAfrican Republic. 

In his answer to the arguments put forward by the South AfricanRepublic, [38] Mr. Chamberlain could only persist in repeating hiscontention that suzerainty still existed, and did not even attempt torefute the statement that Lord Derby had himself erased the preamble ofthe Convention of 1881. It was clearly his opinion that Lord Derby had, through stupidity and thoughtlessness, abandoned the suzerainty in1884, just as Lord Russell had abandoned the idea of obtaining theSouth African Republic in 1852, so that he would now, just as Shepstonein 1877, have to try and disconcert the Republic by a display of forceand inflexible determination, so as not to be deprived of theseeminently "Constitutional means. "

[Sidenote: The Transvaal a sovereign international state. ]

[39] His arguments in this dispatch, that both the suzerainty of HerMajesty and the right of the South African Republic to self-governmentwere dependent upon the preamble of the Pretoria Convention, and that ifthe preamble were null and void, not only would the suzerainty but alsothe right to self-government disappear, were clearly designed tointimidate the South African Republic; but in other respects theargument was perfectly correct. Accordingly the Government of the SouthAfrican Republic replied that it did not base its claim toself-government on the preamble of the Convention of 1881, nor on theConvention of 1884 (for no mention is made of self-government in thatdocument), but simply on the ground of its being a sovereigninternational state. 

In other words, it contended that the Convention of London implied thatthe South African Republic was a sovereign international state, and thatit was therefore superfluous in that Convention to specify or define itsrights. Into this answer, which is not only juridically and historicallycorrect, but which rests on the basis of common sense, the astute HighCommissioner was able to read a menace to Her Majesty's Government, although the Government of the Republic distinctly stated in that replythat it adhered to the Convention of London, an assurance which it hadalready made hundreds of times. 

[Sidenote: Justice of the Transvaal contention. ]

This is the whole history of the suzerainty dispute between the twoGovernments. The South African Republic had asked for arbitration oncertain questions, and England, with Mr. Chamberlain as spokesman, hadrefused, because a suzerain Power could not be expected to settledisputes with its vassal by means of arbitration. So that according tothe new principles of International Law, based on the "screw" ethics ofBirmingham, it was to be judge and jury in its own disputes with otherpeople. 

The position taken up by our Government in this remarkable controversyis substantiated by the actions of Lord Derby during the negotiationsabout the Conventions, as well as by the following telegram, which hesent to the High Commissioner for communication to the two Republics:--

 HIGH COMMISSIONER, CAPE TOWN. 

 _To_ BRITISH RESIDENT, PRETORIA. 

 Please inform Transvaal Government that I have received the following from the Secretary of State:--27th February. Convention signed to-day. New south-western boundary as proposed, following trade road. British Protectorate country outside Transvaal established with delegates' consent. They promise to appoint Border Commissioner inside Transvaal, co-operate with ours outside; Mackenzie--British Resident. Debt reduced to quarter million. Same complete internal independence in Transvaal as in Orange Free State. Conduct and control diplomatic intercourse Foreign Governments conceded. Queen's final approval treaties reserved. Delegates appear well satisfied and cordial feeling two Governments. You may make the above known. 

This Convention is also substantiated by the express declarations ofLord Rosmead and the Rev. D. P. Faure to the effect that it was clearlyunderstood, at the time the London Convention was concluded, that thesuzerainty was abolished. It is unnecessary to add anything about theevidence of the Members of the Transvaal Deputation. The suzerainty hasthus not the slightest shadow of existence; and yet, as will be proved, Mr. Chamberlain is prepared to go to war with the South African Republicover this question, a war which will, according to his intentions, result in Annexation. 

[Sidenote: Uitlander grievances and Capitalistic agitation. ]

While the two Governments were occupied with this question theCapitalists were not idle. They were busy fanning the flame in anotherdirection. It was not only a fact that Rhodesia was an unexpectedfailure, but it had proved far richer in native wars than in payablegold mines. The Capitalist groups possessing the greatest interests inthe Witwatersrand gold mines were also the most deeply interested inRhodesia, and it naturally occurred to them that their Transvaal minesought also to bear the burden of their unprofitable investments inRhodesia--an adjustment which would, however, necessitate theamalgamation of the two countries, especially when the interests of theshareholders were considered. 

In order to attain this object a continual agitation was kept up atJohannesburg, so that English shareholders living far away should beprepared for the day when the Annexation would take place onConstitutional lines. 

The argument which was calculated to impress these European shareholderswas that the administration of the South African Republic had created asituation which was most prejudicial to the financial interests of themining industry. Viewed from this standpoint the Uitlander grievanceswere an inexhaustibly rich and payable mine. 

[Sidenote: The industrial Commission. ]

This agitation first of all emanated directly from the Capitalists, andhad assumed such proportions in 1897 that the Government decided toappoint a Commission of officials and mining magnates in order toenquire searchingly into the alleged financial grievances. As far as theGovernment was concerned, the chief findings of the Commission were:--

(1). That the price of dynamite (85 shillings per case of 50lbs. ) wastoo high under the existing concession, and that a diminution in pricewas desirable either by cancellation of the concession, or by testingthe legality of the concession in the High Court. 

(2). That the tariffs of the Netherlands Railway Company for thecarriage of coal and other articles were too high, and that it wasnecessary to expropriate the railway. 

(3). That the import duties on necessaries of life were too high, andthat the cost of living in Johannesburg for workmen was too high. 

(4). That stringent measures ought to be adopted in order to preventgold thefts, and that the law for the total prohibition of drink tonative labourers ought to be more strictly enforced, and that thereought to be a more stringent application of the Pass Law (under whichthe traffic of the native labourers was regulated). 

(5). With the object of carrying out the measures specified in Section4, the Commission recommended that an Advisory Board should be nominatedfor the Witwatersrand gold fields for the purpose of advising theGovernment as to the enforcement of the said regulations. 

[Sidenote: Results of the Commission. ]

To what extent was effect given to these recommendations?

[Sidenote: Dynamite. ]

1. As far as dynamite is concerned, it appeared that there was no chanceof contesting the concession in the law courts with any success. Nor didthe Volksraad or the Government feel justified in cancelling, withoutthe consent of the owners, a contract which had been solemnly enteredinto, and upon which enormous sums of money had been expended. TheMining Industry was naturally eager for cancellation, even withoutadequate compensation; but the public were not at that time aware of afact which was made public some months later, namely, that the De BeersCorporation intended to erect a dynamite manufactory, and that thisagitation of the Capitalists was intended to obtain for themselves thecontrol of this great source of income. People, however, knew that theMessrs. Chamberlain were interested in the English ammunition anddynamite house of Kynoch, but they hesitate to assume that the ColonialSecretary was actuated in his Transvaal policy by considerations ofprivate financial interest. 

The Government and Volksraad of the South African Republic adopted thewiser plan of lowering the price of dynamite to such an extent as tomake it about equal to the local European price plus a protective tariffof 20s. Per case. 

It may here be remarked that Mr. Chamberlain, knowing how unpopular theDynamite Concession was in the South African Republic, intimated to theGovernment of the South African Republic, in a very threatening manner, that the Concession was in conflict with the London Convention. 

The answer of the Government to this communication was so crushing thatMr. Chamberlain did not again return to the subject. In this he was, nodoubt, also actuated by the fact that the most renowned English andEuropean jurists had advised that the concession was in no sense abreach of the Convention. This, however, only became known later, and itis merely referred to now so as to show that no stone was left unturnedin order to find a means of humiliating the South African Republic. 

[Sidenote: The Netherlands Railway Company. ]

2. With regard to the Netherlands South African Railway Company, itwould appear that the Capitalists have altered their opinion, and nowthink that the administration of the Company is as good as canreasonably be expected, and that expropriation is now unnecessary. Perhaps, from their point of view, it would be better to buy up theshares of the Company, and thus become themselves masters, instead ofthe Government, of this source of income. 

Respecting the Railway tariff, it is fair to assume that the cause ofdissatisfaction has disappeared, for no complaints are now heard sincethe tariff was lowered in accordance with the recommendations of theCommission. 

[Sidenote: Reduction of import duties]

This change in the tariff, together with the abolition of duties onnearly all necessaries of life have made a difference of about £700, 000in the income of the State during the last year. It will be admittedthat this is an enormous item in comparison with the total income ofthe South African Republic. The above tends to show how anxious theGovernment of the South African Republic has been to remove allgrievances as soon as it was proved that they actually existed. 

[Sidenote: Liquor, Pass, and Gold Thefts Laws. ]

3. As regards the administration of the Liquor Law, the Pass Law, andthe Law dealing with Gold thefts, neither the Government nor theVolksraad felt at liberty to adopt the recommendation as to constitutingan Advisory Board on the Witwatersrand. They decided to go deeper to theroots of the evil, and so altered the administration of the Laws thatthe evidences of dissatisfaction have disappeared. Indeed, no one everhears of gold thefts now, and the representative bodies of the miningindustry have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with theadministration of the Pass Law, and especially with that of the LiquorLaw. 

[Sidenote: The Liquor Law. ]

In this very Liquor Law we have a test of a good administration. Fromthe very nature of the drink question it is one of the most difficultlaws that a Government can be called upon to administer, and the measureof success which has attended the efforts of the Government and itsofficials proves conclusively that the charges of incompetency sofrequently brought against the Government of the South African Republicwere devoid of truth, and were only intended to slander and to injurethe Republic. A combined meeting of the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber ofCommerce, and the Association of Mine Managers--the three strongest andmost representative bodies on the Witwatersrand Gold Fields--passed thefollowing resolutions, [40] which speak for themselves:--

 1. This combined Meeting, representing the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Mine Managers' Association, desires to express once more its decided approval of the present Liquor Law, and is of opinion that prohibition is not only beneficial to the Natives in their own interest, but is absolutely necessary for the Mining Industry, with a view of maintaining the efficiency of labour. 

 2. This Meeting wishes to express its appreciation of the efforts made to suppress the Illicit Liquor Trade by the Detective Department of this Republic since it has been placed under the administration of the State Attorney, and is of opinion that the success which has crowned these efforts fully disproves the contention that the Liquor Law is impracticable. 

The first resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority, and thesecond unanimously. 

Compare this declaration of the representatives of the Mining andCommercial interests of the Witwatersrand with the allegation repeatedby Mr. Chamberlain in his great "grievance" dispatch of the 10th May, 1899[41]--that the Liquor Law had never been strictly enforced, but thatthis law was simply evaded, and that the Natives at the mines weresupplied with drink in large quantities. 

When Mr. Chamberlain wrote these words they were absolutely untrue, and, like all his grievances, are of an imaginary character. 

The results have clearly shown that the Government was quite correct inits conclusion that it was better to alter the administration of thelaws complained of, than to adopt a principle (the advisory board), theconsequences and eventual outcome of which no one was able to foresee. 

[Sidenote: The South African League. ]

The agitation in connection with the report of the Industrial Commissionwas followed by a great calm. If it had not been that the handling ofthe Swazie difficulty by the British Government gave colour tosuspicion, one might have thought that there was no cloud upon thehorizon. To a superficial observer, the two Governments seemed to be onthe best and most friendly footing, and some of us actually began tothink that the era of the fraternal co-operation of the two races inSouth Africa had actually dawned, and that the cursed Raid and itsharvest of race hatred and division would be forgotten. Certaincircumstances, however, indicated clearly that the enemy was occupied ina supreme effort to cause matters to culminate in a crisis. 

The South African League, a political organisation which sprang up outof, and owed its origin to, the race hatred which the Jameson Raid hadcalled into being, and at the head of which Mr. Rhodes himself stands (afact which places Capitalistic influence in a very clear light), begantowards the latter part of last year to agitate against the Governmentin the most unheard-of way. 

The individuals who stood at the head of this institution inJohannesburg were such that very little attention was paid to theLeague. It was, however, soon clearly shown that not only was themovement strongly assisted by the Capitalists, and strongly supportedall along the mines, but that there was a close relationship in amysterious way with Cape Town and London. The events of the last fewmonths have brought this out very clearly. Meetings were arranged, memorials to Her Majesty about grievances were drawn up, and an activepropaganda was preached in the Press; this all proved in a convincingway that a carefully planned campaign had been organised against theRepublic. 

As the Government of the South African Republic has set forth the trendof the agitation as well as the connection of the British Governmentwith it in an official despatch, it is desirable to quote the languageitself:--[42] "But this Government wishes to go further. Even in regardto those Uitlanders who are British subjects it is a small minoritywhich, under the pretext of imaginary grievances, promotes a secretpropaganda of race hatred, and uses the Republic as a basis forfomenting a revolutionary movement against this Government. Ministers ofHer Majesty have so trenchantly expressed the truth about this minoritythat this Government wishes to quote the very words of these Ministers, with the object of bringing the actual truth to the knowledge of HerMajesty's Government, as well as to that of the whole world, and not forthe purpose of making groundless accusations. "

"The following words are those of the Ministers of the Cape Colony, whoare well acquainted with local conditions, and fully qualified toarrive at a conclusion":--

"In the opinion of Ministers the persistent action, both beyond andwithin this Colony, of the political body styling itself the SouthAfrican League in endeavouring to foment and excite, not to smooth andallay ill-will between the two principal European races inhabiting SouthAfrica, is well illustrated by these resolutions, the exaggerated andaggravated terms of which disclose the spirit which informs and inspiresthem. "

"His Excellency's Ministers are one in their earnest desire to do all intheir power to aid and further a policy of peaceful progress throughoutSouth Africa, and they cannot but regard it as an unwise propagandism, hostile to the true interests of the Empire, including this Colony as anintegral part, that every possible occasion should be seized by theLeague and its promoters for an attempt to magnify into greater eventsminor incidents, when occurring in the South African Republic, with aprospect thereby of making racial antagonism more acute, or of renderingless smooth the relations between Her Majesty's Government or theGovernment of this Colony and that Republic. "

"Race hatred is, however, not so intense in South Africa as to enable abody with this propaganda, aiming at revolutionary objects, to obtainmuch influence in this part of the world; and one continually asksoneself the question--'How is it that a body, so insignificant both inregard to its principles and its membership, enjoys such a large measureof influence?' The answer is that this body depends upon the protectionand the support of Her Majesty's Government in England, and that bothits members and its organs in the Press openly boast of the influencethey exert over the policy of Her Majesty's Government. This Governmentwould ignore such assertions; but when it finds that the ideas and theshibboleths of the South African League are continually echoed in thespeeches of members of Her Majesty's Government, when it finds that bluebooks are compiled chiefly from documents prepared by officials of theSouth African League, as well as from reports and leading articlescontaining 'malignant lies' taken from the press organs of thatorganisation, thereby receiving an official character, then thisGovernment can well understand why so many of Her Majesty's right-mindedsubjects in this part of the world have obtained the impression that thepolicy advocated by the South African League is supported by HerMajesty's Government, and is thus calculated to contribute to thewelfare and blessing of the British Empire. "

"If this mistaken impression could be removed, and if it could beannounced as a fact that the South African League, as far as its actionsin the South African Republic are concerned, is only an organisationhaving as its object the fomentation of strife and disorder and thedestruction of the independence of the Country, then it would very soonlose its influence, and the strained relations existing between the twoGovernments would quickly disappear. The Africander population of thiscountry would not then be under the apprehension that the interests ofthe British Empire _imperatively demand_ that the Republic should bedone away with, and its people be either _enslaved or exterminated_. Both sections of the white inhabitants of South Africa would then returnto the fraternal co-operation and fusion which was beginning to manifestitself when the treacherous conspiracy at the end of 1895 awakened thepassions on both sides. "

As a result of the continual agitation of the South African League, three occurrences were selected and elevated by Mr. Chamberlain intoculminating instances of the Uitlander grievances. To give the world aclear insight into the nature of the grievances in general, extracts aregiven from the official accounts both of the British and the Republicanaccount of these occurrences. There were three--the "Lombard affair, "with reference to the maltreatment of coloured British subjects atJohannesburg; the "Edgar case, " in connection with the shooting of anEnglish subject by a police official; and the "Amphitheatre occurrence, "in regard to a disorderly meeting of the South African League. 

[Sidenote: _a. _ The Lombard Incident. ]

With regard to the "Lombard incident, " Mr. Chamberlain says:--[43] "Asan instance of such arbitrary action the recent maltreatment of colouredBritish subjects by Field Cornet Lombard may be cited. This officialentered the houses of various coloured persons without a warrant atnight, dragged them from their beds, and arrested them for being withouta pass. The persons so arrested were treated with much cruelty, and itis even alleged that one woman was prematurely confined, and a childsubsequently died from the consequences of the fright and exposure. Menwere beaten and kicked by the orders of the Field Cornet, who appears tohave exercised his authority with the most cowardly brutality. TheGovernment of the Republic, being pressed to take action, suspended theField Cornet, and an enquiry was held, at which he and the police deniedmost of the allegations of violence; but the other facts were notdisputed, and no independent evidence was called for the defence. TheGovernment have since reinstated Lombard. 

"Unfortunately this case is by no means unparalleled. Other Britishsubjects, including several from St. Helena and Mauritius, have beenarbitrarily arrested, and some of them have been fined, without havingbeen heard in their own defence, under a law which does not even professto have any application to persons from those Colonies. 

"However long-suffering Her Majesty's Government may be in their anxiousdesire to remain on friendly terms with the South African Republic, itmust be evident that a continuance of incidents of this kind, followedby no redress, may well become intolerable. "

The answer of the Government of the South African Republic was asfollows:--[44] "With reference to the Lombard case, this Governmentwishes to point out that no complaint was lodged with any official inthis Republic for a full month after the illtreatment of Cape colouredpeople was alleged to have taken place, and that neither the Governmentnor the public was aware that anything had taken place. The whole casewas so insignificant that some of the people who were alleged to havebeen illtreated declared, under oath, at a later period before a courtof investigation that they would never have made any complaint on theirown initiative. What happened, however?

"About a month after the occurrence the South African League came tohear of it; some of its officials sent round to collect evidence fromthe parties who were alleged to have been illtreated, and some sworndeclarations were obtained by the help of Her Majesty's Vice-Consul atJohannesburg (between whom and this League a continual and conspicuousco-operation has existed). Even then no charge was lodged against theimplicated officials with the judicial authorities of the country, butthe case was put in the hands of the Acting British Agent at Pretoria. 

"When the allegations were brought under the notice of this Government, they at once appointed a commission of enquiry, consisting of threemembers, namely, Landdrost Van der Berg, of Johannesburg, Mr. AndriesStockenstrom, barrister-at-law, of the Middle Temple, head of theCriminal Section of the State Attorney's Department, and Mr. Van derMerwe, Mining Commissioner, of Johannesburg; gentlemen against whoseability and impartiality the Uitlander population of the Republic havenever harboured the slightest suspicion, and with whose appointment theActing British Agent also expressed his entire satisfaction. Theinstructions given to those officials were to thoroughly investigate thewhole case, and to report the result to the Government; and theyfulfilled these instructions by sitting for days at a time, carefullyhearing and sifting the evidence of both sides. Every right-mindedperson readily acknowledges that far greater weight ought to be attachedto the finding of this Commission than to the declarations of thecomplainants, who contradicted one another in nearly every particular, and who caused the whole enquiry to degenerate into a farce. "

"According to the report, nothing was proved as to the so-calledilltreatment; the special instances of alleged illtreatment turned outto be purely imaginary; but it was clearly proved and found that thecomplainants had acted contrary to law, and the Commission onlyexpressed disapproval of the fact that the arrests and the investigationhad taken place at night, and without a proper warrant. It fills thisGovernment with all the greater regret to observe that Her Majesty'sGovernment bases its charges on _ex parte_, groundless, and, in manyrespects, false declarations of complainants who have been set in motionby political hatred, and that it silently ignores the report of theCommission. "

[Sidenote: _b. _ The Edgar Case. ]

Mr. Chamberlain represented the Edgar case in the following way:--[45]"But perhaps the most striking recent instance of arbitrary action byofficials, and of the support of such action by the Courts, is thewell-known Edgar case. The effect of the verdict of the jury, warmlyendorsed by the Judge, is that four policemen breaking into a man'shouse at night without a warrant, on the mere statement of one person, which subsequently turned out to be untrue, that the man had committed acrime, are justified in killing him there and then because, according totheir own account, he hits one of them with a stick. If this isjustification, then almost any form of resistance to the police isjustification for the immediate killing of the person resisting, who maybe perfectly innocent of any offence. This would be an alarming doctrineanywhere. It is peculiarly alarming when applied to a city likeJohannesburg, where a strong force of police armed with revolvers haveto deal with a large alien unarmed population, whose language in manycases they do not understand. The emphatic affirmation of such adoctrine by Judge and jury in the Edgar case cannot but increase thegeneral feeling of insecurity amongst the Uitlander population, and thesense of injustice under which they labour. It may be pointed out thatthe allegation that Edgar assaulted the police was emphatically deniedby his wife and others, and that the trial was conducted in a way thatwould be considered quite irregular in this country, the witnesses forthe defence being called by the prosecution, and thereby escapingcross-examination. "

The answer of the Government of the South African Republic was:--[46]"The Edgar case is referred to by your Government as the most strikingrecent instance of arbitrary action by officials, and of the support ofsuch action by the Courts, " and this case is quoted as a conclusivetest of the alleged judicial maladministration of this Republic; itwill, therefore, be of interest to pause for a moment and consider it. What are the true facts?

"A certain Foster, 'an Englishman, ' was assaulted and felled to theground, without any lawful cause, by a man named Edgar during the nightof the 18th December, 1898; he lay on the ground as if dead, andultimately died in the hospital. Edgar escaped to his room, and somepolice came on the scene, attracted by the screams of the bystanders. Amongst the police was one named Jones. When they saw the man who hadbeen assaulted lying as if dead, they went to Edgar's apartment in orderto arrest him as a criminal (he had, indeed, rendered himself liable formanslaughter, and apparently for murder). As he was caught in the veryact, the police officers were, according to the Laws, not only of thisRepublic, but of all South Africa and of the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Ireland, justified in breaking open the door in order toarrest the culprit. While doing so, Edgar, with a dangerous weapon, struck Jones a severe blow. Under the stress of necessity the lattershot Edgar, from the effects of which he died. The question is not ifJones was justified in taking this extreme step, for the State Attorneyof the Republic had already given effect to his opinion that this was acase for the jury by prosecuting him for manslaughter. The question issolely whether any jury in any country in the world would have found aman guilty of any crime under the circumstances set forth, and whether, if they did not find him guilty, the fact of their doing so would havebeen stamped and branded as a flagrant and remarkable instance of themaladministration of Justice. 

"This Government is convinced that the English judicial administrationaffords numberless instances where the facts are as strong as in thiscase, and it cannot see why an occurrence which could happen in any partof the world would be especially thrown in their teeth in the form of anaccusation. 

"This Government does not wish to pass over in silence the censure whichhas been passed by Her Majesty's Government on the Public Prosecutor ofJohannesburg, by whom the prosecution of this case was conducted; thefact that being of pure English blood, that he received his legaltraining in London, that he is generally respected by the Uitlanderpopulation on account of his ability, impartiality, and generalcharacter, will naturally not be of any weight with Her Majesty'sGovernment against the facts of his action in calling witnesses for theprosecution who were intended for the defence, and thus rendering animaginary cross-examination abortive. 

"This Government only wishes to point out that the fact that the Edgarcase is the strongest which Her Majesty's Government has been able toquote against the administration of Justice in this Republic affords thestrongest and most eloquent proof possible that, taking it in general, the administration of Justice on the gold fields of this Republic notonly compares favourably with that on other and similar gold fields, buteven with that of old and settled countries. 

"The untrue representations of this occurrence in the Press proveconclusively that the newspapers of the Witwatersrand, theatrocity-mongering tactics of which constitute a share of the organisedcampaign against the Republic and its Government, have been compelled toresort to mendacious criticisms on imaginary instances ofmaladministration, which were often simply invented. Where the Press isforced to adopt such methods, the true grievances must of necessity beunreal. "

[Sidenote: _c. _ The Amphitheatre occurence. ]

I now give Mr. Chamberlain's accusations about The the Amphitheatreoccurrence:--[47] "Some light upon the extent to which the police can betrusted to perform their delicate duties with fairness and discretion isthrown by the events referred to by the petitioners, which took place ata meeting called by British subjects for the purpose of discussing theirgrievances, and held on the 14th of January in the Amphitheatre ofJohannesburg. The Government were previously apprised of the objects ofthe meeting, and their assent obtained, though this was not legallynecessary for a meeting in an inclosed place. The organisers of themeeting state that they were informed by the State Secretary and theState Attorney that anyone who committed acts of violence or usedseditious language would be held responsible, and in proof of thepeaceful objects of the meeting, those who attended went entirelyunarmed, by which it is understood that they did not even carry sticks. So little was any disturbance apprehended that ladies were invited toattend, and did attend. Yet, in the result, sworn affidavits ofwitnesses of different nationalities agree in the statement that themeeting was broken up almost immediately after its opening, and many ofthe persons attending it were violently assaulted by organised bands ofhostile demonstrators, acting under the instigation and guidance ofpersons in Government employ, without any attempt at interference on thepart of the police, and even in some cases with their assistance orloudly expressed sympathy. 

"The Government of the South African Republic has been asked toinstitute an inquiry into these disgraceful proceedings, but the requesthas been met with a flat refusal. "

This accusation was answered in the following manner:--[48] "TheAmphitheatre occurrence is used by Her Majesty's Government to show howincapable the police of the Witwatersrand are to fulfil their duties andto preserve order. The League meeting was held at the so-calledAmphitheatre at Johannesburg, with the knowledge of the State Secretaryand State Attorney, and the accusation is that in spite of that fact theuproar which arose at that meeting was not quelled by the police. Thefollowing are the true facts:--Mr. Wybergh and another, both in theservice of the South African League, informed the State Secretary andthe State Attorney that they intended to call this meeting in theAmphitheatre, and asked permission to do so. They were informed that nopermission from the authorities was necessary, and that as long as themeeting did not give rise to irregularities or disturbances of thepeace, they would be acting entirely within their rights. Theirattention was then drawn to the fact that owing to the action and thepropaganda of the South African League, this body had become extremelyunpopular with a large section of the inhabitants of Johannesburg, andthat in all probability a disturbance of the peace would take place if asufficient body of the police were not present to preserve order. Tothis these gentlemen answered that the police were in very bad odoursince the Edgar case, that the meeting would be a very quiet one, andthat the presence of the police would contribute or give rise todisorder, and that they would on those grounds rather have no police atall. 

"The State Secretary and State Attorney thereupon communicated with thehead officials of the police at Johannesburg, with the result that thelatter also thought that it would be better not to have any considerablenumber of police at the meeting. The Government accordingly, on theadvice of these officials of the League as well as their own policeofficials, gave instructions that the police should remain away fromthis meeting; they did this in perfect good faith, and with the objectof letting the League have its say without let or hindrance. Theproposed meeting was, however, advertised far and wide. As the feelingamongst a section of the Witwatersrand population was exceedingly bitteragainst the League, a considerable number of the opponents of that bodyalso attended the meeting. The few police who were present werepowerless to quell the disorder, and when the police came on the scenein force some few minutes after the commencement of the uproar, themeeting was already broken up. Taken by itself, this occurrence wouldnot be of much importance, as it is an isolated instance as far as thegold fields of this Republic are concerned, and even in the bestorganised and best ordered communities irregularities like the aboveoccasionally take place. 

"The gravity of the matter, however, lies in the unjust accusation ofHer Majesty's Government--that the meeting was broken up by officials ofthis Republic, and that the Government had curtly refused to institutean enquiry. 

"This Government would not have refused to investigate the matter if anycomplaints had been lodged with it, or at any of the local Courts, andthis has been clearly stated in its reply to Her Majesty's request foran investigation. 

"This Government objects strongly to the systematic way in which 'thelocal authorities are ignored, and the continual complaints which arelodged with the Representatives of Her Majesty about matters which oughtto be decided by the Courts of this Republic. Instead, however, ofcomplaining to Her Majesty's Government after all other reasonable meansof redress have been vainly invoked, they continually make themselvesguilty of ignoring and treating with contempt the local Courts andauthorities by continually making all sorts of ridiculous and _ex parte_complaints to Her Majesty's Government in the first instance; HerMajesty's Government is also thereby placed in the equivocal andundesirable position of intermeddling in the internal affairs of thisRepublic, which is in conflict with the London Convention. Had thecomplaints been lodged with this Government, or with the properofficials or Courts, the facts could have been very easily arrived at, and it would have been proved that the few officials who were present atthe meeting as a section of the public had done their best to preventthe irregularities, and that some of them had been hurt in theirendeavours to preserve order. Instead of expressing their disapproval ofsuch complaints, and referring the petitioners to the local Courts, HerMajesty's Government accepts those complaints, and gives them anofficial character by forwarding them for the information of thisGovernment, and by publishing them in blue books for the information ofthe world. 

"Her Majesty's Government will readily acknowledge that there is noState in the world with any sense of dignity, however weak andinsignificant it may be, which can regard such matters with anindifferent eye; and when the relations of the two Governments arestrained, then the mainspring must be looked for in this action of itssubjects, which is not disapproved of by Her Majesty's Government, andnot in imaginary or trumped-up grievances. "

I have now examined the principal financial and administrativegrievances of the English Uitlanders. I say English Uitlandersadvisedly, because complaints are seldom or ever heard from othernationalities, either directly or by means of diplomaticrepresentations. 

Can it be contended with the slightest shadow of right and fairness thatthese grievances afford a reason for intervention? What crimes havebeen committed here against humanity or the law of nations? Do not therecorded grievances and abuses find a parallel in occurrences which aretaking place every day in the most civilised countries? One can withperfect justice apply to the present circumstances the language whichthe Russian Government used in stigmatising the illegal intervention ofthe British Government in the internal affairs of the Kingdom ofNaples[49]:--

"We would understand that, as a consequence of friendly forethought, oneGovernment should give advice to another in a benevolent spirit; thatsuch advice might even assume the character of exhortation; but webelieve that to be the furthest limit allowable. Less than ever can itnow be allowed in Europe to forget that sovereigns are equal amongthemselves, and that it is not the extent of territory, but the sacredcharacter of the rights of each, which regulates the relations thatexist between them. To endeavour to obtain from the King of Naplesconcessions as regards the internal government of his States by threats, or by a menacing demonstration, is a violent usurpation of hisauthorities, an attempt to govern in his stead; it is an opendeclaration of the right of the strong over the weak. "

In spite of all its hypocritical accusations, the British Government isperfectly well aware that, notwithstanding the unparalleled difficultieswith which the Government and the Legislature have had to contend, theadministration of the South African Republic is on a sound basis, andcan, indeed, be favourably compared with that of other countries in asimilar position. 

It knows full well that the grievances which are used, by means of bluebooks, to stir up and excite the altruistic and humane feelings of theBritish public are for the most part imaginary, and that even if theywere perfectly genuine, they nevertheless afford no ground for ajustifiable interference in the internal affairs of the Republic. It istherefore necessary to have recourse to "Constitutional means" ofanother description. 

[Sidenote: Equal political rights. ]

The third and last "Constitutional" method which Mr. Chamberlain has hadrecourse to in order to forcibly intermeddle in the internal affairs ofthe South African Republic is the claim of equal rights for all thewhite inhabitants of the South African Republic. In this claim he hasalso followed the inspiration of Mr. Rhodes, for after the Jameson RaidMr. Rhodes was prepared with a new programme for the "progressivepolicy" of South Africa, and made use of the formula "Equal rights forall white people south of the Zambesi. " Mr. Rhodes altered this cryafterwards, with an eye to the coloured vote in the Cape Colony, to"Equal rights for all civilised persons south of the Zambesi. "

In due time the echo resounded from Downing Street "Equal politicalrights for all persons in the South African Republic. " This formula maybe either desirable or undesirable as a political aspiration in SouthAfrica. But it is somewhat strange that Mr. Chamberlain should be one ofthe leaders of the party in England which has strenuously opposed thepolicy of manhood suffrage. In our case, however, Mr. Chamberlain doesnot confine himself to friendly advice, but he _demands_ the franchisefor all Uitlanders. 

The South African Republic already possesses a franchise law, accordingto which every person is entitled to the full franchise after a sevenyears' residence in the Republic. But Mr. Chamberlain goes much further, and claims a far more extensive franchise. On what grounds does he basehis claim?

[Sidenote: The Royal Commission. ]

He appeals to the discussions which formed a prelude to the Conventionof 1881. In the discussions, however, mention is only made of burgherrights or civil rights, with reference to which all possible equalityhas continuously existed since the Sand River Convention. To safeguardthe equality of those civil as distinguished from political rights, Art. 12 of the Pretoria Convention provides "all persons (Her Majesty's loyalsubjects) will have full liberty to reside in the country with theenjoyment, of all civil rights, and protection for their persons andproperty. "

The period of the franchise was increased in 1882 from one year to fiveyears, without, however, any protest from Her Majesty's Government, andin 1884 it was provided in the new Convention of that year in the mostexpress and clear way possible that:--

 (_Art. XIV_. ). --All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African Republic (_a_) will have full liberty with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the South African Republic; (_b_), they will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises; (_c_), they may carry on their commerce either in person or by any agents whom they may think fit to employ; (_d_), they will not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those which are or may be imposed upon citizens of the said Republic. 

In this way all white Uitlanders were guaranteed in their rights of freemovement, ownership, and possession of property, trade, and commerce, and equal taxation with the burghers. There is no mention of politicalrights, nor has there ever been before this year--1899. The Governmentof the South African Republic would be acting strictly in terms of theConvention if it informed Mr. Chamberlain that it alone has to determineupon the Franchise, as being a question of a purely internal nature; andfurther, that in claiming the right in terms of that Convention to forcethe Government to adopt a particular Franchise Law Mr. Chamberlain isthe party who is violating the Convention. 

[Sidenote: The Bloemfontein Conference. ]

The Government of the South African Republic, however, took up a higherposition; the State President went to Bloemfontein for the purpose ofdiscussing even internal affairs in a friendly spirit with the HighCommissioner--_inter alia_--the question of the franchise, as he wasactuated by the wish to consolidate and promote the peace of SouthAfrica. [50] Sir Alfred Milner said there: "If the question could besettled upon a broad and firm basis, the tension would disappear andeverything come right in time. " He has done his best latterly to provethat he did not say or mean anything of the kind, that the franchisequestion was only one of the burning internal matters in which HerMajesty's Government interested itself, and that a favourableunderstanding about the franchise would in no way pave the way to anagreement as to the other points of difference. 

[Sidenote: Sir Alfred Milner's attitude. ]

The attitude of Sir Alfred Milner in this and other questions is, however, of such a nature that it is better to say nothing about hisconduct, but to leave him to the judgment of public opinion and history. No agreement being possible between the parties, President Kruger leftBloemfontein and amended the Franchise Law in such a way that the OrangeFree State, the Africanders of Cape Colony, and even Mr. Schreiner, Premier of the Cape Colony, publicly signified their approval of theamendments which had been made. 

[Sidenote: The joint Commission of Enquiry. ]

Mr. Chamberlain now discarded the appearance of friendliness, and beganto adopt a menacing tone in his communications to the Government of theSouth African Republic. He proposed that the question as to whether thenew Franchise Law was satisfactory or not should be discussed by a JointCommission. 

In the meanwhile, owing to informal conversations between the StateAttorney and the British Government, there seemed to be a reasonableprospect of a speedy and satisfactory settlement. [51] The BritishGovernment, on being sounded by its agent, announced that if a fiveyears' franchise, unhampered by complicated conditions, and with aquarter representation for the gold fields, were conceded, it would beprepared to consider the conditions, upon which the proposal depended, on their merits, and would not consider such a proposal as a refusal toaccept the Joint Enquiry. The conditions were that (_a_) no furtherinterference should take place; (_b_), that the claim of suzeraintyshould drop; and (_c_) that further disputes should be settled byArbitration. As soon, however, as the proposal was formally made theBritish Government refused to accept the condition with regard to thedropping of the suzerainty claim, notwithstanding the fact that the HighCommissioner had declared in an official dispatch that the suzeraintycontroversy appeared to him to be etymological and not political. [52]Shortly afterwards the British Government made what was practically thesame proposal, but _without_ the condition as to the dropping of thesuzerainty claim. 

[Sidenote: Bad faith of the British Government. ]

As the Government of the South African Republic attached a vitalimportance to this condition, in view maintaining its internationalstatus, it refused to accept the proposal in this form; it, however, nowreverted to the invitation for a joint enquiry, which it agreed toaccept, but the British Government replied that it was too late, andthat as a matter of fact it no longer adhered to the invitation. 

Here we see in the clearest light--

(1). That, although the High Commissioner had stated that the suzeraintywas only a question of etymological importance, that although theBritish Government had never been able to refute the arguments advancedby the South African Republic as to the abolition of the suzerainty in1884, the British Government was nevertheless determined not to abandonits pretension, and is now prepared to make war in South Africa overthis point. 

(2). That the British Government invites the South African Republic to ajoint enquiry, and, when this invitation, which had never beenwithdrawn, is accepted, the acceptance is refused with every mark ofcontempt. 

Is there any instance in the history of civilised diplomacy of suchtrickery and such callous jugglery with the highest interests of SouthAfrica?

Can anyone wonder that South Africa has lost all confidence in Britishstatesmanship?

The British name has been sullied in this part of the world by manyperfidious actions, but of a truth I cannot instance any more despicableand repellent incidents than those which have marked the course ofevents during the last few months. 

And the consequence of this trickery will be written with the blood andthe tears of thousands of innocent people. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 33: Dispatches of 12th August, 1896; 21st August, 1896; 17thFebruary, 1897. C. 8423 and C. 8721. ]

[Footnote 34: Dispatches of the 6th March, 1897. C. 8423. ]

[Footnote 35: Dispatch, 7th May, 1897. No. 3, C. 8721. ]

[Footnote 36: Dispatch, October, 1897. No. 7, C. 8721. ]

[Footnote 37: Dispatch, 16th April, 1898. No. 4, C. 9507. ]

[Footnote 38: Dispatch. C. 9507. Page 33. ]

[Footnote 39: Dispatch, 17th March, 1899. C. 9507. ]

[Footnote 40: 17th August, 1899. ]

[Footnote 41: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. No. 83, C. 9345. ]

[Footnote 42: Dispatch of the Transvaal Government, 26th September, 1899. Appendix C. ]

[Footnote 43: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. Blue Book, C. 9345. Page 229. ]

[Footnote 44: Dispatch. Appendix C. ]

[Footnote 45: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. C. 9345. Page 229. ]

[Footnote 46: Appendix C. ]

[Footnote 47: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. Blue Book, C. 9345. Page 229. ]

[Footnote 48: Appendix C. ]

[Footnote 49: _Life of Prince Consort_, Vol. III. , page 510. ]

[Footnote 50: Blue Book, C. 9404. ]

[Footnote 51: Blue Book, C. 9530. ]

[Footnote 52: Blue Book, C. 9507. Page 6. ]

CONCLUSION. 

I have now reviewed all the facts connected with the history of ouroppression and persecution during the past hundred years. Theallegations I have made are not invented, but are based upon thestatements of the most reliable witnesses, nearly all of them of Britishnationality; they are facts that have been declared incontestable beforethe tribunal of history. As far as the more recent occurrences since1898 are concerned, I may state that I have had personal knowledge ofall the negociations and questions at issue above referred to, and I canonly declare that I have confined myself to facts; these will stand outin a much clearer light when the curtain is raised and the events of thelast two years in this sorely afflicted part of the world are revealed. 

In this awful turning point in the history of South Africa, on the eveof the conflict which threatens to exterminate our people, it behoves usto speak the truth in what may be, perchance, our last message to theworld. Even if we are exterminated the truth will triumph through usover our conquerors, and will sterilise and paralyse all their effortsuntil they too disappear in the night of oblivion. 

Up to the present our people have remained silent; we have been spatupon by the enemy, slandered, harried, and treated with every possiblemark of disdain and contempt. But our people, with a dignity whichreminds the world of a greater and more painful example of suffering, have borne in silence the taunts and derision of their opponents;indeed, they elected out of a sense of duty to remedy the faults andabuses which had crept into their public administration during momentsof relaxed vigilance. But even this was ascribed to weakness andcowardice. Latterly our people have been represented by influentialstatesmen and on hundreds of platforms in England as incompetent, uncivilised, dishonourable, untrustworthy, corrupt, bloodthirsty, treacherous, etc. , etc. , so that not only the British public, but nearlythe whole world, began to believe that we stood on the same level as thewild beasts. In the face of these taunts and this provocation our peoplestill remained silent. We were forced to learn from formal blue booksissued by Her Majesty's Government and from dispatches of Her Majesty'sHigh Commissioner in South Africa that our unscrupulous StateGovernment, and our unjust, unprincipled, and disorderly administration, was a continual festering sore, which, like a pestilential vapour, defiled the moral and political atmosphere of South Africa. We remainedsilent. We were accused in innumerable newspapers of all sorts ofmisdeeds against civilisation and humanity; crimes were imputed to us, the bare narration of which was sufficient to cause the hair to risewith horror. If the reading public believe a hundredth part of theenormities which have been laid at the door of our people andGovernment, they must be irresistibly forced to the conclusion that thisRepublic is a den of thieves and a sink of iniquity, a people, in fact, the very existence of which is a blot upon humanity, and a nuisance tomankind. Of the enormous sums which we are alleged to have spent out ofthe Secret Service Fund in order to purchase the good opinion of theworld there has been no practical result or evidence, for the breath ofslander went on steadily increasing with the violence of a hurricane. But our people remained silent, partly out of stupidity, partly out of afeeling of despairing helplessness, and partly because, being a pastoralpeople, they read no newspapers, and were thus unaware of the way inwhich the feeling of the whole world was being prejudiced against themby the efforts of malignant hate. 

The practical effect has been that our case has been lost by defaultbefore the tribunal of public opinion. That is why I feel compelled tostate the facts which have characterised the attitude of the Britishtowards us during the Nineteenth century. Naboth's title to his vineyardmust be cancelled. The easiest way of securing that object, according tothe tortuous methods of British diplomacy, was to prove that Naboth wasa scoundrel and Ahab an angel. The facts which have marked Ahab's careerhave been stated. I shall now proceed to draw my conclusions, which Isubmit must appeal irresistibly to every impartial and right-mindedperson. 

During this century there have been three periods which have beencharacterised by different attitudes of the British Government towardsus. The first began in 1806, and lasted until the middle of the century. During this period the chief feature of British policy was one of uttercontempt, and the general trend of British feeling in regard to ourunfortunate people can be summarised by the phrase, "The stupid anddirty Dutch. " But the hypocritical ingenuity of British policy wasperfectly competent to express this contempt in accents which harmonisedwith the loftiest sentiments then prevailing. The wave of sentimentalphilanthropy then passing over the civilised world was utilised by theBritish Government in order to represent the Boers to the world asoppressors of poor peace-loving natives, who were also men and brethreneminently capable of receiving religion and civilisation. 

It may seem inexplicable that the Power which stood up boldly at theTreaty of Utrecht as the shameless champion of negro slavery was thevery one which was celebrated in South Africa for its morbid love of thenatives; the explanation, however, is that it was not so much love forthe native that underlay the apparent negrophilistic policy as hatredand contempt of the Boer. As a result of this hatred of the Boer, disguised under the veneer of philanthropy in regard to the aborigines, the natives were employed as police against us; they were provided witharms and ammunition to be used against us; they were incited to fightus, and, wherever it was possible, they murdered and plundered us. Infact, our people were forced to bid farewell to the Cape Colony and allthat was near and dear to them, and seek a shelter in the unknownwilderness of the North. 

As an ultimate result of this hatred, our people had to pursue theirpilgrimage of martyrdom throughout South Africa, until every portion ofthat unhappy country has been painted red with the blood, not so muchof men capable of resistance as with that of our murdered anddefenceless women and children. 

The second period lasted until the year 1881. The fundamental principlethen underlying British policy was no longer one of unqualified hatred. Results had already proved that hatred was powerless to subdue theAfricander; it had, on the other hand, contributed largely to theconsolidation of Africanderdom and to the fact that they spread over thewhole of South Africa, thus forming the predominant nationality almosteverywhere. In a moment of disinterestedness or absent-minded dejectionEngland had concluded treaties with the Boers in 1852 and 1854, by whichthey were guaranteed in the undisturbed possession of certain wild andapparently worthless tracts of territory. 

The fundamental sentiment which governed the policy of the second periodwas a feeling of regret at having made this mistake, coupled with thefirm determination to set aside its results. These wild and uselesstracts, which had been guaranteed to the Boers, appeared to be veryvaluable after the Boers had rescued them from barbarism, and openedthem up for civilisation. It was felt that they ought to gleam amongstthe jewels of Her Majesty's Crown, notwithstanding the obstacle in thetreaties that had been concluded with the Boers. This was the concealedintention. As far as the means were concerned--they were, from the veryexigency of inborn hypocrisy, partly revealed and partly concealed; theone differing from the other, as light from darkness. The secret meansconsisted in arming the Kaffir tribes against us in the most incrediblemanner, and in inciting them to attack us in violation of solemntreaties and promises. If this policy succeeded the real objects andmeans could be suppressed, and England could then come forward and poseopenly as the champion of peace and order, and as the guardian angel ofcivilisation in this part of the world. The Republics could then beannexed under cover of these plausible pretexts. This policy failed asfar as the Orange Free State was concerned, because the brave burghersof the neighbouring Republic succeeded, after great difficulty, inovercoming Moshesh, notwithstanding the fact that their arms andammunition had been illegally stopped by the British Government. Englandwas compelled in that case to confine itself to the protection of its"Basuto" tools. The British, however, succeeded in preventing the Boersfrom reaping the legitimate fruits of their victory, and in annexing theDiamond Fields--a flagrantly illegal act. 

As far as the South African Republic is concerned, it was unfortunatethat the burghers were not vigilant enough to foresee and prevent thecrafty policy of the enemy. As the Transvaal Boers had subdued the mostpowerful Kaffir tribes, they never dreamt that the insignificant Kaffirwars in which they had been involved through English intrigue would havebeen seized as a pretext to annex their country to the British Crown. They had been remiss in not putting their full force into the field soas to bring these little wars to a speedy conclusion. And so the Magatoand Socoecoeni campaigns were conducted in a protracted and half-heartedway, much to the satisfaction of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and thosewho were at his back. 

The Annexation was brought about. It was announced that the extension ofHer Majesty's sway and protection over the South African Republic couldalone secure unity of purpose and trade, as well as open out a prospectof peace and prosperity. In these words of Shepstone's proclamation wesee in all its repulsive nakedness the hypocrisy which openlymasqueraded in the guise of the disinterested and pitiful Samaritan, while its true and secret object was to inflict a fatal wound upon theburgher Republic. 

The third period of our history is characterised by the amalgamation ofthe old and well-known policy of fraud and violence with the new forcesof Capitalism, which had developed so powerfully owing to the mineralriches of the South African Republic. Our existence as a people and as aState is now threatened by an unparalleled combination of forces. Arrayed against us we find numerical strength, the public opinion of theUnited Kingdom thirsting and shouting for blood and revenge, theworld-wide and cosmopolitan power of Capitalism, and all the forceswhich underlie the lust of robbery and the spirit of plunder. Our lothas of late become more and more perilous. The cordon of beasts ofplunder and birds of prey has been narrowed and drawn closer and closeraround this poor doomed people during the last ten years. As the woundedantelope awaits the coming of the lion, the jackal, and the vulture, sodo our poor people all over South Africa contemplate the approach of thefoe, encircled as they are by the forces of hatred and revenge, and bythe stratagems and covetousness of their enemies. Every sea in theworld is being furrowed by the ships which are conveying British troopsfrom every corner of the globe in order to smash this little handful ofpeople. Even Xerxes, with his millions against little Greece, does notafford a stranger spectacle to the wonder and astonishment of mankindthan this gentle and kind-hearted Mother of Nations, as, wrapped in allthe panoply of her might, riches, and exalted traditions, she approachesthe little child grovelling in the dust with a sharpened knife in herhand. This is no War--it is an attempt at Infanticide. 

And as the brain of the onlooker reels, and as his thoughts fade awayinto uneasy slumbers, there arises before him in a dream the distantprospect of Bantu children playing amongst the gardens and ruins of thesunny south around thousands of graves in which the descendants of theEuropean heroes of Faith and Freedom lie sleeping. 

For the marauding hordes of the Bantu are once more roving whereEuropean dwellings used to stand. And when the question is asked--whyall this has happened? Why the heroic children of an heroic race, towhich civilisation owes its most priceless blessings, should liemurdered there in that distant quarter of the globe? An invisible spiritof mockery answers, "Civilisation is a failure; the Caucasian is playedout!" and the dreamer awakens with the echo of the word "Gold! gold!gold!" in his ears. 

The orchids of Birmingham are yellow. The traditions of the greatestpeople on earth are tarnished and have become yellow. 

The laurels which Britannia's legions hope to win in South Africa aresere and yellow. 

But the sky which stretches its banner over South Africa remains blue. The justice to which Piet Retief appeals when our fathers said farewellto the Cape Colony, and to which Joachim Prinsloo called aloud in theVolksraad of Natal when it was annexed by England; the justice to whichthe burghers of the Transvaal entrusted their case at Paarde Kraal in1880, remains immutable, and is like a rock against which the yeastybillows of British diplomacy dissolve in foam. 

It proceeds according to eternal laws, unmoved by human pride andambition. As the Greek poet of old said, it permits the tyrant, in hisboundless self-esteem, to climb higher and higher and to gain greaterhonour and might until he arrives at the appointed height, and thenfalls down into the infinite depths. 

Africanders, I ask you but to do as Leonidas did with his 300 men whenthey advanced unflinchingly at Thermopylæ against Xerxes and hismyriads, and do not be disturbed by such men as Milner, Rhodes, andChamberlain, or even by the British Empire itself, but cling fast to theGod of our forefathers, and to the Righteousness which is sometimes slowin acting, but which never slumbers nor forgets. Our forefathers did notpale before the terrors of the Spanish Inquisition, but entered upon thegreat struggle for Freedom and Right against even the mighty Philip, unmindful of the consequences. 

Nor could the rack and the persecuting bands of Louis XIV. Tame orsubdue the spirit of our fathers. Neither Alva nor Richelieu were ableto compass the triumph of tyranny over the innate sentiment of Freedomand Independence in our forefathers. Nor will a Chamberlain be morefortunate in effecting the triumph of Capitalism, with its lust forpower, over us. 

If it is ordained that we, insignificant as we are, should be the firstamong all peoples to begin the struggle against the new-world tyranny ofCapitalism, then we are ready to do so, even if that tyranny isreinforced by the power of Jingoism. 

May the hope which glowed in our hearts during 1880, and which buoyed usup during that struggle, burn on steadily! May it prove a beacon oflight in our path, invincibly moving onwards through blood and throughtears, until it leads us to a real Union of South Africa. 

As in 1880, we now submit our cause with perfect confidence to the wholeworld. Whether the result be Victory or Death, Liberty will assuredlyrise in South Africa like the sun from out the mists of the morning, just as Freedom dawned over the United States of America a little morethan a century ago. Then from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay it will be

 "AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANDER. "

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. 

LORD DERBY'S DISPATCH ON THE CONVENTION OF 1884. 

 _To_ MESSRS. KRUGER, DU TOIT, AND SMIT. DOWNING STREET, 15 _February_, 1884. 

GENTLEMEN, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13thinst. , in which you intimate your readiness to accept the arrangementproposed by me at our recent interview, whereby the debt of theTransvaal State to Her Majesty's Government would be reduced by£127, 000. I will not delay to recommend this proposal to theconsideration of Her Majesty's Government. 

I have considered the representations and suggestions made in the fourthand following paragraphs of your letter, and I do not think it would nowbe practicable to carry out the arrangements which you propose for thesettlement of the questions referred to. Her Majesty's Government arewilling, however, that the 20th Article of the Convention of Pretoriashall be retained in the new Convention, with such verbal alterations asare requisite, and I am glad to understand that this course will meetyour views. 

When I had the pleasure of receiving you here on the 8th inst. Wediscussed the other principal questions which, in addition to those ofthe boundary and the debt, you had submitted to me in previouscorrespondence, and I explained to you generally the nature and extentof the concessions which Her Majesty's Government would be able to makein regard to them. You were satisfied with these explanations, as far asthey were put before you; and the progress which has been made appearsto me to render it convenient that I should now transmit for yourperusal a draft of the new Convention which Her Majesty's Governmentpropose in substitution for the Convention of Pretoria. In this draftthe Articles of the Convention of Pretoria, which will be no longer inforce, have been printed alongside of the proposed new Articles, andwhere an Article is retained and altered, the alterations have beenshown in order to explain clearly the changes which will be made. Youwill find that in the draft, and the map which accompanies it, theconclusions which have been arrived at in the course of ourcommunications have been closely adhered to and accurately expressed, and I trust that you will experience no difficulty in understanding andagreeing to each of its provisions. If, however, there should be anypoint as to which you are doubtful, it may be convenient that you shouldagain meet me here and receive such further explanations as may bedesirable. 

It does not appear to me to be necessary that I should refer in detailto each Article of the draft. You will observe that in the preamble andthroughout the Convention the wish of your Government that thedesignation "South African Republic" should be substituted for"Transvaal State" has been complied with. In the first Article theextension of the Western boundary is precisely defined as agreed to. Bythe omission of those Articles of the Convention of Pretoria whichassigned to Her Majesty and to the British Resident certain specificpowers and functions connected with the internal government and theforeign relations of the Transvaal State your Government will be leftfree to govern the country without interference, and to conduct itsdiplomatic intercourse and shape its foreign policy subject only to therequirement embodied in the fourth Article of the new draft--that anytreaty with a foreign State shall not have effect without the approvalof the Queen. 

There are other provisions in the draft which have not been the subjectof discussion with you; they are for the most part a renewal of thosedeclarations made on behalf of the Transvaal State in the Convention ofPretoria, which it is desirable (as I trust you will agree in thinking)to maintain as an assurance to all parties that there will be nowithdrawal of those securities for liberty and equal treatment whichyour State has always professed itself ready to afford. I would, however, refer more specifically to the 19th Article of the draft, inwhich it is proposed that in consideration of the discontinuance of alldirect interference by this country in the government and control of thenatives within the Transvaal, it should be formally declared that yourGovernment will adopt and carry out the assurances which, with theirassent and approval, were given to those natives by Her Majesty'sCommissioners. 

I trust that I may soon hear from you that there is no obstacle to myinforming Her Majesty's Government that the Draft Convention can beadopted. 

I have, etc. , DERBY. 

A CONVENTION CONCLUDED BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, &C. , &C. , AND THESOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. 

NOTE. --_The words and paragraphs bracketed or printed in italics areproposed to be inserted, those within a black line are proposed to beomitted. _

[**Transcriber's Note: Words to be omitted are surrounded with '='s. **]

Her Majesty's Commissioners for the settlement of the TransvaalTerritory, duly appointed as such by a Commission passed under the RoyalSign Manual and Signet, bearing date the 5th of April 1881, do herebyundertake and guarantee, on behalf of Her Majesty, that from and afterthe 8th day of August 1881, complete self-government, subject to thesuzerainty of Her Majesty, Her Heir and Successors, will be accorded tothe inhabitants of the Transvaal Territory, upon the following terms andconditions, and subject to the following reservations and limitations:--

Whereas the Government of the Transvaal State, through its Delegates, consisting of Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, President of the saidState. Stephanus Johannes Du Toit, Superintendent of Education; NicholasJacobus Smit, a member of the Volksraad, have represented to the Queenthat the Convention signed at Pretoria on the 3rd day of August, 1881, and ratified by the Volksraad of the said State on the 20th October, 1881, contains certain provisions which are inconvenient, and imposesburdens and obligations from which the said State is desirous to berelieved; and that the south-western boundaries fixed by the saidConvention should be amended, with a view to promote the peace and goodorder of the said state, and of the countries adjacent thereto; andwhereas Her Majesty the Queen, &c. , &c. , has been pleased to take thesaid representations into consideration. Now, therefore, Her Majesty hasbeen pleased to direct, and it is hereby declared that the followingarticles of a new Convention--shall when ratified by the Volksraad ofthe South African Republic, be substituted for the Articles embodied inthe Convention of 3rd August, 1881; which latter, pending suchratification, shall continue in full force and effect. 

Signed at =Pretoria= _London_ this =3rd day of August 1881, =

 =HERCULES ROBINSON, = =President and High Commissioner= =EVELYN WOOD, Major General, = =Officer Administering the Government= =J. H. De VILLIERS. =

We, the undersigned, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, =Martinus WesselPretorius=, and =Petrus Jacobus Joubert=, as =representatives delegates=of the =Transvaal Burghers=, _South African Republic_, do hereby agreeto all the above conditions, reservations, and limitations, =under whichself government has been restored to the inhabitants of the TransvaalTerritory, subject to the enzerainty of Her Majesty, Her Heirs andSuccesssors, and we agree to accept the Government of the saidTerritory, with all rights and obligations thereto appertaining, on the8th day of August 1881, = and we =promise and= undertake that thisConvention shall be ratified by a =newly elected= Volksraad of the=Transvaal State= _South African Republic_ within =three= _six_ monthsfrom this date. 

Signed at =Pretoria, = _London_, this =3rd day of August 1881=

 =S. J. P. KRUEGER= =M. W. PRETORIUS= =P. J. JOUBERT=

APPENDIX B. (TRANSLATION). 

THE ANNEXATION OF THE DIAMOND FIELDS. 

In his speech at the opening of the Cape Parliament on the 18th April, 1872, Sir Henry Barkly said:--

"The Sovereignty of Her Majesty was therefore proclaimed and broughtinto operation with the _full consent of the diggers_, and theGovernment has since been carefully and efficiently administered, notwithstanding considerable difficulties. "

The _Diamond News_ of the 1st May, 1872, says, in referring to thisspeech:--

"Of the three short paragraphs which immediately concern us, the firstis one of self-congratulation--the diggers and other inhabitants ofGriqualand accept the British Government with heartfelt satisfaction. Sir Henry says nothing of the unaccountable and daily increasingdissatisfaction with that Government, and perhaps he knows nothing ofit, as it would be an act of suicide for the Commissioners, which theywould not be guilty of, to report about the prevailing feelings. "

On the 30th May, 1872, the _Diamond Fields_ said:--

"There can be no doubt that the population of the Diamond Fields arestrongly opposed to annexation to the Cape Colony. 

"If anything like a plebiscite could be taken, the votes against beingput under the Cape Government would be in the proportion of nine to one. .. Even the Free State Government would get two votes to one if theCape Town Government were the only other candidate. "

In December, 1871, scarcely a month after the dispersion of the FreeState authorities and the constitution of Sir Henry Barkly's junta, lynch law broke out. Lawlessness and general insecurity prevailedeverywhere (see _Diamond News_, 17th January, 20th March, 17th July, 1872). 

One reads in the _Diggers' Gazette_ of the 26th April, 1872:--

"No one would wish to ask for a continuation of the existing state ofaffairs. Only entirely mischievous people could wish for thecontinuation of such a failure as our Commissioners of British rule havebrought about on these Fields. We have formerly expressed ourselvesopenly about this matter, and our local contemporaries have done thesame. "

The following remarks were made in the _Diamond News_ of the 16thDecember, 1871:--

"A description of Du Toit'span by night lately appeared in the _DiamondNews_ as it used to be under the admittedly unsatisfactory Free Statepolice, and, by way of contrast, as it now is, after the withdrawal ofthat police. The comparison is not flattering to the strength of mind oradministrative capability of our present rulers, and a comparison ofFree State administration with Cape administration would in no way bemore favourable to the latter. 

"The British Government, so highly prized, which would put everything torights and would do so much for the diggers, has brought the camps backto their original position of having to protect themselves. "

In the _Diamond News_ of the 10th July, 1872 (eight months after theconstitution of Sir Henry Barkly's rule), the following criticismsappear:--

"Robberies are becoming so frequent that if we were only to relate theparticulars of those that have been brought to our notice we wouldrequire more space than our limits will allow. Innumerable petty theftsare passed by without punishment. This is certainly a charming state ofaffairs! And the question naturally arises--how long will this continue?Thieves, black and white, experienced and dangerous, and yet no nightpolice to stop their illegal actions! Shall we get no night police, ormust the scoundrels, who are poisoning our camps continually, enjoy theimmunity and freedom which they now appear to have?"

On the 26th July lynch law and revolt broke out afresh in an extensiveway at New Rush, the principal diggings. The _Diggers' Gazette_ made thefollowing remarks about this:--

"As long as Judge Lynch remains free to hold his court and to levy hispunishments, for so long can the whole framework and machinery of lawfulauthority just as well cease to exist. 

"Authority cannot maintain its claim to be respected as long as personssuffering under the sense of having been injured take the law into theirown hands, solely because of the proved incapability of those inauthority to protect them where their interests mostly need protection. 

"Day after day, and night after night, the one or other part of the campis entertained by the edifying spectacle of natives being thrashed, tents being burnt, and white people surrounded by ferocious crowds whocan scarcely be kept back from carrying out their desire for vengeanceby a small truncheon and a thick thong. 

"We do not wish to justify this state of affairs, but we cannot shut oureyes to the injustice which almost makes it a necessity. No magistrate, however exceptional, counts against the absence of such laws, discipline, and police as our circumstances demand, and through want ofwhich there is no other prospect than that terrorism which arises out ofa blind struggle against anarchy. "

The _Diamond News_, in its issue of 20th July, 1872, says:--

"The copious news in our columns, and the reports of meetings, as wellas the scenes which take place every night at mass meetings in this timeof excitement, uproar and confusion, take up nearly all our principalcolumns. We heartily wish that the fire may be speedily got under, orelse it is very much to be feared that the end will be dreadfullyinjurious to the safety and welfare of the innocent. "

On the 19th July, 1872, a very large meeting of diggers was held at theMarket Square, New Rush, when the following resolution, among others, was unanimously passed:--

"As this meeting is of opinion that, with a view to the prevailingdisturbances in this camp, the Commissioners ought at once, with theDiggers' Committee, to make such amendments in the existingunsatisfactory state of the law as will as far as possible prevent thethefts of diamonds by native labourers, and their purchase byunprincipled dealers, and will also make such alterations in the law soas to promote the general welfare. "

In the Cape Parliament, commencing the 5th June, 1872, Mr. Merrimansaid:--

"The Fields . .. Were annexed and a form of government was introducedthere which could not be more ludicrous. A sort of irresponsibleCommission (the Rovers junta) was established, in which the memberscould not agree, and were not responsible to anybody; he could imaginenothing more ridiculous or which worked worse. The Orange Free State hadgiven the people a sort of representation, but the first act of ourGovernment was to abolish all the Commissions, and the result was thatthe people were burdened with an irresponsible body. 

"The Orange Free State had appointed a responsible official . .. Who wasefficient . .. While we had established a court twenty miles away fromthe most populated part; whereby grinding expenses had been entailed onthose who sought justice, just as if it was the only object of theBritish Government to pile up heavy law costs. "

Mr. Knight said: "One of the chief reasons why he was against Annexationwas that nine-tenths of the population on the fields would hold uptheir hands to get rid of the present Government because they felt thatthey were far better off before they were annexed. "

Mr. Buchanan declared: "He himself, when he visited the Diamond Fields, had wandered from camp to camp, and from the one sorting table to theother, and had talked with the diggers in order to acquaint himself asto their feelings about various matters, and he had obtained theconviction that there was a great deal of feeling against the BritishGovernment. "

In the subsequent debate in the Cape Parliament Mr. J. H. Brown said, inregard to Mr. Orpen's motion: "That the diggers look with the greatestcontempt on the Government which was there now, and that this Governmentwas quite as much hated as it deserved to be. "--(_Diggers' Gazette_, 12th July, 1872). 

In the _Diamond News_ of the 8th October, 1872, one reads:--

"Newspaper after newspaper comes out, and those who have a claim uponland look eagerly to see 'what is happening about the land?' and all theinformation the newspaper gives is that David Arnot, Esq. , claims halfthe country, and that Francis Orpen, Esq. , the Surveyor, has decidedthat £30 must be paid before the case of any claimant can be taken intoconsideration. It is Arnot and Orpen and land; and land and Orpen andArnot, week after week. They appear to be made one for the other, andfor nothing and nobody else. 

"Half a newspaper is filled with lists of claims of the said David, andit becomes daily clearer and clearer that the great head chief ofGriqualand West cannot be Mr. Waterboer, but must be DavidArnot--because all the claims and all the kopjes have been provided for, and all are for Mr. Arnot and nobody else. 

"The impression is everywhere that British protection is invoked not forBritish interests, nor for the interests of Britons working on thefields here, but for the sake of two gentlemen who hold the reins withfar more power than ought to be given to anyone who is entrusted withthe administration of this country. 

"Who has ever heard of a Government which binds itself to give thesurveyorship of a new country to one man only? Mr. Francis Orpen isdecidedly a first-class man in his profession . .. But that does notjustify any Government in agreeing that he, and he only, is to keep thesurvey of this territory entirely in his own hands. Everyone knows whatthat must lead to. "

APPENDIX C. 

THE REPLY TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S DISPATCH ON GRIEVANCES. 

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PRETORIA. 

_26th September_, 1899. 

SIR, The Government of the South African Republic has the honour toacknowledge the receipt of a copy of a certain dispatch dated 10th May, 1899, addressed to His Excellency the High Commissioner by the Secretaryof State for the Colonies, in consequence of a petition sent to HerMajesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. 21, 684 signatures appearon this petition, and are said to have been affixed thereto by anequivalent number of British subjects resident at Johannesburg, in thisRepublic. 

This Government notes that Her Majesty's Government have thought fit, onthe grounds of the information already in their possession, to makeinvestigation into the subject matter of the aforesaid petition, and, asa result of such investigation, to express to this Government theirviews on the administration of the internal affairs of this Republic, which said views they have at the same time communicated to thememorialists as an answer to their petition. 

This Government may be permitted to point out that the Convention ofLondon of 1884, entered into between this Republic and the Government ofHer Britannic Majesty, guarantees to the South African Republic full andfree internal administration without any interference from anyonewhatever. As Lord Derby notifies in his dispatch of the 15th February, 1884:--

"Your Government will be left free to govern the country withoutinterference, and to conduct its diplomatic intercourse, and shape itsforeign policy, subject only to the requirements embodied in the fourtharticle of the new draft--that any treaty with a foreign State shall nothave effect without the approval of the Queen. "

In his despatch of the 4th February, 1896, the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, states:--

"In the next place, it is necessary that I should state clearly andunequivocally what is the position which Her Majesty's Government claimto hold toward the Government of the South African Republic. Since theConvention of 1884, Her Majesty's Government recognised the SouthAfrican Republic as a free and independent Government as regards all itsinternal affairs not touched by the Convention. "

In a telegram, also from Mr. Chamberlain, dated 26th March, 1896, thesame statement is substantially made, viz. :--"Her Majesty's Governmentdo not claim any rights under the Conventions to prescribe particularinternal reforms which should be made in South African Republic. "

This Government has always felt it a solemn duty for the Republic toadhere strictly to the Convention of 1884 in its entirety; at the sametime, it has been consistent in protesting in the most forcible manneragainst any interference or intermeddling with the internal affairs ofthe Republic, and against the discussion or treatment of these affairswith or by any other than the Republic itself, and it can discover noreasons now which would either justify such interference or exempt itfrom the accusation of being a violation of the Convention of London. 

This Government feels convinced that Her Majesty's Government would notfavourably entertain a request from British subjects for interventionbecause the said British subjects are unwilling (as was agreed betweenthis Republic and Her Majesty's Government in the Convention of London)to conform themselves to the laws of the land and to respect the legalinstitutions and customs of the South African Republic, and because theyfeel aggrieved that the laws are not altered in accordance with theirdemands. 

The friendly relations so highly prized by this Government which haveexisted between this Republic and the United Kingdom, the other party tothe Convention of London, have always been a safe guarantee to thisGovernment against such a breach of the Convention on the part of HerMajesty's Government, and it greatly deplores the fact that HerMajesty's Government has now decided to act in conflict with theConvention of London by busying itself with the imaginary grievances ofthe Uitlanders, and making representations thereanent to thisGovernment. Against such action this Government feels that it mustearnestly and emphatically protest, and the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlaincould not take it amiss if this Government were to pay no furtherattention to the charges against its administration contained in thepetition, or if they declined to discuss further the views of HerMajesty's Government about these charges. 

This Government has, however, on more than one occasion, notified to HerMajesty's Government that it will attach great value to any suggestionswhich may be tendered in the interests of British subjects, and it willcertainly lend a very willing ear to any friendly advice or hints whichmay be given by Her Majesty's Government as being the representative ofa Power which, with this Republic and the Orange Free State, protectsand fosters the paramount interests of South Africa. 

His Honour the State President was animated by these sentiments when heaccepted the courteous invitation of His Honour President Steyn toproceed to Bloemfontein in order to confer with Your Excellency aboutmatters which are an equal source of interest to this Republic and HerMajesty's Government. These friendly sentiments now prompt it to takethe liberty of drawing serious attention to the fact that Her Majesty'sGovernment certainly appear to be supplied with insufficient andincorrect data about facts and occurrences from which erroneous ideasand conclusions are drawn, so that, although desirous of avoidingsubjects the discussion of which would be contrary to the Convention, this Government nevertheless feels that it ought to convey to HerMajesty's Government the true position of affairs, and that it ought topoint out how the latter is misled, the condition of affairs as depictedin the dispatch under reply being in all respects exaggerated, and inmany instances entirely untrue. 

In the first place, this Government wishes to point out that, so farfrom the petition which gave rise to the despatch under reply havingbeen signed by 21, 684 British subjects, it appears indeed that it wassigned by very few people in the South African Republic--leaving asideall mention of British subjects. This has been substantiated in manycases by sworn declarations, many of which were handed to His Excellencythe High Commissioner during the Conference at Bloemfontein, and thisGovernment feels that it may flatter itself that the British Government, after having examined these documents, will share with this Governmentthe view that this memorial is in itself a matter of very slightimportance, even although it may contain the signatures of a certainnumber of British subjects who hold the opinion that they are entitledto a change in the form of Government because, in violation of theConvention entered into between this Republic and Her Majesty'sGovernment, they will not conform themselves to the laws of the land, but claim alterations therein at their own caprice. 

This Government is all the more convinced that this memorial is of nogreat moment, and that it certainly does not express the feelings of allthe so-called Uitlanders, because another memorial has been received byit from about 23, 000 inhabitants of this Republic, nearly allUitlanders, and amongst whom are several British subjects. The HighCommissioner was informed that the signatures to this memorial wereobtained in a perfectly _bona fide_ way, and this information wassupported by sworn affidavits. The purport of this memorial boreevidence to the fact that the thousands of Uitlanders who signed it weresatisfied with the administration and the Government of this Republic, and did not share the views of the memorialists to Her Britannic Majestyin respect of what the latter considered to be legitimate grievances. 

This Government may further be permitted to point out that although theUitlander population may have co-operated in effecting an increase inthe revenues of the State, principally, as His Excellency has beeninformed, in custom dues, prospecting licences, railway receipts, etc. , so that the revenue in 1898 amounted to £3, 983, 360, the fact must not belost sight of, on the other hand, that gold to the value of_£20, 000, 000_ was exported from the State during the same year 1898, almost entirely by the Uitlanders. 

At the same time, it must not be forgotten that although the, chief itemin custom dues is collected on goods which are imported at Johannesburg, yet these goods are not entirely used or consumed by the Uitlanders, fora considerable quantity is sent over the whole Republic by the wholesalemerchants to the retail dealers who do business with the burghers in thevillages and the country, so that much of what is imported intoJohannesburg is destined for consumption by the original burgher of theRepublic. 

With regard to the contention that the mining industry is more heavilytaxed than in any other country, and that the cost of the necessaries oflife is higher, this Government desires to remark that this contentionis entirely contradicted by facts and statistics. The value of goodsimported into the South African Republic during 1898 amounted to£9, 996, 575, and the custom duties levied thereon to £1, 058, 224, or 10. 6per cent. Under the Customs Union of the adjacent British Colonies theimport duties amounted to 15 per cent, of the value of the goods, acomparison which yields a difference of nearly 50 per cent. In favour ofthe Republic. When the matter is examined in detail the case is evenstronger. In the Colonies certain articles, such as bread stuffs, aresubject to a special duty of 2s. , say about 30 per cent, of the value, in corn, and 40 per cent. In meal. In this Republic the duty on both theforegoing articles is 7-1/2 per cent. ; butter is especially taxed at 3d. Per pound, or 30 per cent. , under the Customs Union, while in theRepublic it is subject only to the 7-1/2 _ad valorem_ duty. Coffee andother necessaries of life, on being compared, would show a similardifference, and this Government therefore trusts that Her Majesty'sGovernment will exonerate it when it points out the incorrectness andunreliability of the information supplied to the Secretary of State, onwhich he bases his conclusion that the cost of living is unusually highin consequence of the taxation levied by the State; that such is not thecase will be at once shown by a comparison with the taxation of theneighbouring Colonies. 

The character of the financial administration must have been erroneouslyrepresented to Her Majesty's Government if it was simply stated thatdefalcations to an amount of £18, 590 had taken place. It would _exfacie_ appear from such a statement that the above defalcations hadtaken place during the past year; as a matter of fact, the InspectionDepartment, which has only recently been called into existence, reportedover financial matters covering the years 1884 to 1896. 

It is unfair to characterise all deficiencies as defalcations, for fromthe nature of the case a deficiency does not always constitute adefalcation. The report specified the sub-divisions of monies which hadyet to be accounted for. The first item in such deficiencies amountedoriginally to £12, 000, and of this £6, 000 was afterwards collected, andthe balance was only brought forward; another item of _£10, 808 11s. _ wasbrought forward in its entirety, but £3, 000 of this was eventuallycollected and accounted for, while continual efforts were made to securethe balance. Many items not brought forward were collected long beforeand accounted for, while during the inspection of last year it was foundthat a sum of £800 yet remained to be paid in out of the deficiencies, which balance has been accounted for. 

The contention that advances to officials amounting to _£2, 398, 506 16s. 8d. _ have remained unaccounted for is also absolutely incorrect; and theendeavour to pass this circumstance off as constituting defalcations onthe part of officials bears ample witness to the strong desire tomislead which has actuated the informants of Her Majesty's Government. 

Any person who is even superficially acquainted with financialadministration will readily admit that this is due to a system ofaccounting which was followed until recently by Her Majesty'sGovernment, and which obtains in some British Colonies, in Natal, forinstance, at the present moment. 

This system may deserve condemnation; it does not, however, necessarilyfollow that because the advances may not be speedily accounted for theyhave been embezzled, and it does not appear either from the report ofthe Inspector of Offices, or from the debates of the Volksraad, thatsuch accusations were made. But in addition to this a sum of at least£1, 968, 306 is included in the aforesaid total of £2, 398, 506 16s. 8d. (but which is not comprised in the customary advances), such as OrphanChamber £80, 000, Indigent Burghers £150, 000, Postal Orders £60, 000, various loans to School Committees, Sanitary Boards, and for Waterworks, Hospitals, Committees, monies placed at interest in Europe, provisionalloans to Railway Companies, purchases of food stuffs and mules in timeof famine, and many others. 

Items, too, of considerable importance appear in the advances, althoughthey have really been accounted for up to within a pound or two, becausefor one reason or another it has not been possible to write off theexact total, the amounts still to be accounted for having dwindled to avery insignificant figure. 

The contention that during 1896 a sum of £191, 837 was paid out of theSecret Service Money is also absolutely unfounded, for in that amount asum of £158, 337 was included which was used for special GovernmentWorks, as was expressly stated in a foot-note on page 44 of theEstimates for 1897. The Secret Service Fund for that year (1896) did notamount to more than £33, 500. This faulty information, supplied to HerMajesty's Government, is apparently taken from the said Estimates, itwould seem with the fixed determination to ignore the explanatoryfoot-note on page 44. 

It is incorrect to state that the system of granting concessions remainsin full force. Where the Right Hon. The Secretary of State in hisdespatch refers to industrial concessions, this Government may remarkthat these are privileges granted in order to stimulate and protectlocal industry, and the contention that these concessions will developinto practical monopolies is not supported by any evidence; results willshow that misleading information has been given here as well. 

With regard to the question of education which has been dealt with inthe dispatch of the Right Hon. The Colonial Secretary, this Governmentwishes to point out that the amount expended on education during theyear 1898 was £226, 219 4s. 8d. In the former year it was less. Of thisamount £36, 503 17s. 2d. Was devoted to Education on the Gold Fields (forState as well as for subsidized schools). As the number of scholarsunder Act 15, 1896, as well as that of the teachers, have considerablyincreased, the amount during the current year will probably be_£53, 000_. The conditions on which this money is given are certainly notsuch as to exclude the children of Uitlanders from its benefits. According to Volksraad Resolution of 1st June, 1892 (and amendments), schools where a foreign language was the medium of instruction wereentitled to a subsidy of 20s. Per pupil per quarter for the lowerstandard, and 25s. For the middle standard, provided that certainrequirements as to knowledge of the official language of the countrywere complied with. These requirements are a standard lower than thatfor children of burghers in the country, who are taught in schoolsgoverned by Law No. 8 of 1892. 

Few, if any, Uitlanders avail themselves of this offer; the few who havedone so are now satisfied with it, and continue to enjoy the privilegesof the resolution, although it was only renewed in 1898 for thoseschools which made a _bona fide_ use of it. Law No. 15, 1896, madeprovision for the children of poor parents and strangers on theproclaimed gold fields entirely at State expense, and 13 schools havebeen established by this law--with 51 teachers and about 1, 500scholars--at Barberton, Pilgrims' Rest, Kaapsche Hoop, Johannesburg (5, viz. , 1 in von Brandis Street, 1 at Braamfontein, 1 at Union Ground, 1at Vredesdorp, and 1 in Market Street), Maraisburg, Krugersdorp, Randfontein, Klerksdorp, and Nigel. In addition to these, preparationsare being made for State schools at the City and Suburban, Bertramstownship, Johannesburg, and at Roodepoort (Krugersdorp). 

Out of the above-named 13 schools, English is the medium of instructionin four, and of the remaining nine English is the medium for thechildren of English-speaking parents, and Dutch for those ofDutch-speaking parents. In these nine schools a little more time isdevoted to learning Dutch in each standard than was the case in theformer standard, so that equality in both languages is reached at the5th standard. 

Altogether there are 27 Dutch Africander or Hollander teachers, and 24teachers of English origin in these 13 schools. The Dutch Africander orHollander teachers are obliged to possess a thorough knowledge ofEnglish, and have either to pass an examination or produce a certificateto that effect. 

The object of the system of education in this Republic is to ensure inthe first place the foundation of general knowledge. Law No. 8, 1892, provides this for the children of the original Boer population in theirmother tongue, in which the necessary schoolbooks must be written, withthis understanding, however, that in the 3rd standard three hours, andin the higher ones four hours, per week out of the 25 must be devoted toeducation in a foreign language. 

With regard to the schools formed under the above-mentioned Resolution, teaching is carried on through the medium of a foreign language, but atleast 5 hours per week must be devoted to the study of the officiallanguage of the country. 

Of the 13 schools formed under Law 15 of 1896, the children of strangersare instructed in their own language, while the number of hours forinstruction in and by means of Dutch is increased in each standard. 

According to a Resolution of the First Volksraad, dated the 8th August, 1898, Article 731, a certain number of the School Board members requiredby Article I of Law 15 of 1896 have to be nominated and chosen by theExecutive Council out of enfranchised persons (Article 2, Law 8, 1893)proposed by the fathers of the school children, on the understandingthat the persons so chosen shall constitute less than half of the wholeSchool Board, and further, that the persons so proposed shall always bedouble the number of the people actually nominated. The above factsclearly prove, according to the opinion of this Government, that HerMajesty's Government has also been misled in respect to the matter ofeducation. It is clear that one-fourth of the whole educational vote hasbeen devoted to the gold fields, so that the children of Uitlanderresidents can make use of it; that proper provision is made foreducation in the mother tongue whatever it may be, while at the sametime compulsory education of the language of the country is alsoprovided for. That both by the Resolution of the 1st June, 1892, as wellas by the Law 15 of 1896, more has actually been done for the Uitlandersthan for the original inhabitants, and that more time is given to themother tongue of the children in the schools on the gold fields of thisRepublic than in any country in the world, and that here againinformation of a misleading character must have been given to HisExcellency and the British Government. 

Law No. 15, 1896, and the schools thereby established have beendefended by Englishmen in various newspapers. (See the _S. A. News_, 10thMay, 1899; _The Star_, 22nd March, 1899; _Manchester Guardian_, etc. ). 

With reference to the Municipality of Johannesburg, this Governmentdesires to remark that in accordance with the promise made in 1896, thegrant of Municipal Administration was made to the inhabitants ofJohannesburg by which the control of that town and its suburbs wasconferred upon them. 

Her Majesty's Government seem to think that this Municipality does notanswer its purpose, in the first place because half of the members mustbe naturalized burghers (not fully enfranchised burghers as the dispatchunder reply erroneously contends), and in the second place because thefinancial powers of the town council are restricted. 

With regard to the first objection, it is impossible that this should bea great grievance, because a residence of two years in the Republic issufficient for naturalisation; as a matter of fact, more than thenecessary half of the members are burghers; this shows conclusively thatthe requirement of burghership is in no sense an obstacle. The objectionas to the restriction of the financial powers of the council is notconclusive, because there is no Municipality in the world the financialpowers of which are not restricted by the law under which they arecreated, and the restrictions in the case of the town council ofJohannesburg are the usual ones in such cases. 

The Advisory Board recommended by the Industrial Commission would haveproved inefficient because the laws with the administration of whichthat body would have had to concern itself can be carried out in abetter and more efficient way by an official like the State Attorney, who has almost unlimited power and means of doing so. This is exactlywhat has happened. All complaints with regard to gold thefts haveactually disappeared; one no longer hears of complaints as to theoperation of the pass law; while latterly, as Her Majesty's Governmentmust be well aware, the Chamber of Mines and other bodies of theWitwatersrand have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with thestringent way in which the liquor law has been upheld. No local body, however well informed, would have been able to do what the StateAttorney has done in this matter, and that is sufficient justificationof the action of both Government and Volksraad in refusing to establishsuch an Advisory Board. 

The Government now passes on to the discussion of the administration ofjustice, of which so much is made in the dispatch under reply. 

With regard to these allegations, this Government perceives that muchimportance is attached in the dispatch to the so-called Lombardincident, the so-called Edgar case, and the so-called Amphitheatreoccurrence. 

A brief consideration of the facts referring to these three matters willshow how unfounded are the accusations of Her Majesty's Government. 

With reference to the Lombard incident, this Government wishes to pointout that no complaint was lodged with any official in this Republic fora full month after the illtreatment of Cape coloured people was allegedto have taken place, and that neither the Government nor the public wasaware that anything had taken place. The whole case was so insignificantthat some of the people who were alleged to have been illtreateddeclared under oath at a later period before a court of investigationthat they would never have made any complaint on their own initiative. What happened, however?

About a month after the occurrence the South African League came to hearof it; some of its officials sent round to collect evidence from theparties who were alleged to have been illtreated, and some sworndeclarations were obtained by the help of Her Majesty's Vice-Consul atJohannesburg (between whom and this League a continual and conspicuousco-operation has existed). Even then no charge was lodged against theimplicated officials with the judicial authorities of the country, butthe case was put in the hands of the Acting British Agent at Pretoria. 

When the allegations were brought under the notice of this Government, they at once appointed a commission of enquiry consisting of threemembers, namely, Landdrost Van der Berg, of Johannesburg, Mr AndriesStockenstrom, barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple, head of theCriminal Section of the State Attorney's Department, and Mr. Van derMerwe, mining commissioner, of Johannesburg; gentlemen against whoseability and impartiality the Uitlander population of the Republic havenever harboured the slightest suspicion, and with whose appointment theActing British Agent also expressed his entire satisfaction. Theinstructions given to these officials were to thoroughly investigate thewhole case, and to report the result to the Government; and theyfulfilled these instructions by sitting for days at a time, andcarefully hearing and sifting the evidence of both sides. Everyright-minded person readily acknowledges that far greater weight oughtto be attached to the finding of this Commission than to thedeclarations of the complainants, who contradicted one another in nearlyevery particular, and who caused the whole enquiry to degenerate into afarce. 

According to the report, nothing was proved as to the so-calledilltreatment; the special instances of alleged illtreatment turned outto be purely imaginary; it was clearly proved and found that thecomplainants had acted contrary to Law, and the Commission onlyexpressed disapproval of the fact that the arrests and the investigationhad taken place at night, and without a proper warrant. It fills thisGovernment with all the greater regret to observe that Her Majesty'sGovernment bases its charges on _ex parte_, groundless, and in manyrespects false declarations of complainants who have been set in motionby political hatred, and that it silently ignores the report of theCommission. 

The Amphitheatre occurrence is used by Her Majesty's Government to showhow incapable the police of the Witwatersrand are to fulfil their dutiesand to preserve order. The League meeting was held at the so-calledAmphitheatre at Johannesburg, with the knowledge of the State Secretaryand State Attorney, and the accusation is that in spite of that fact, the uproar which arose at that meeting was not quelled by the police. The following are the true facts:--Mr. Wybergh and another, both in theservice of the South African League, informed the State Secretary andthe State Attorney that they intended to call this meeting in theAmphitheatre, and asked permission to do so; they were informed that nopermission from the authorities was necessary, and that as long as themeeting did not give rise to irregularities or disturbances of thepeace, they would be acting entirely within their rights. Theirattention was then drawn to the fact that owing to the action and thepropaganda of the South African League, this body had become extremelyunpopular with a large section of the inhabitants of Johannesburg, andthat in all probability a disturbance of the peace would take place if asufficient body of the police were not present to preserve order. Tothis these gentlemen answered that the police were in very bad odoursince the Edgar case, that the meeting would be a very quiet one, andthat the presence of the police would contribute, or give rise to, disorder, and that they would on those grounds rather have no police atall. The State Secretary and State Attorney thereupon communicated withthe head officials of the police at Johannesburg, with the result thatthe latter also thought that it would be better not to have anyconsiderable number of police at the meeting. The Governmentaccordingly, on the advice of these officials of the League as well astheir own police officials, gave instructions that the police shouldremain away from the meeting; they did this in perfect good faith, andwith the object of letting the League have its say without let orhindrance. The proposed meeting was however advertised far and wide. Asthe feeling amongst a section of the Witwatersrand population wasexceedingly bitter against the League, a considerable number of theopponents of that body also attended the meeting. The few police whowere present were powerless to quell the disorder, and when the policecame on the scene in force some few minutes after the commencement ofthe uproar, the meeting was already broken up. Taken by itself, thisoccurrence would not be of much importance, as it is an isolatedinstance as far as the gold fields of this Republic are concerned, andeven in the best organised and best ordered communities irregularitieslike the above occasionally take place. 

The gravity of the matter, however, lies in the unjust accusation of HerMajesty's Government--that the meeting was broken up by officials ofthis Republic, and that the Government had curtly refused to institutean enquiry. 

This Government would not have refused to investigate the matter if anycomplaints had been lodged with it, or at any of the local Courts, andthis has been clearly stated in its reply to Her Majesty's request foran investigation. 

The Government objects strongly to the systematic way in which the localauthorities are ignored, and the continual complaints which are lodgedwith the Representatives of Her Majesty about matters which ought to bedecided by the Courts of this Republic. Instead, however, of complainingto Her Majesty's Government after all other reasonable means of redresshave been vainly invoked, they continually make themselves guilty ofignoring and treating with contempt the local Courts and authorities, bycontinually making all sorts of ridiculous and _ex parte_ complaints toHer Majesty's Government in the first instance; Her Majesty's Governmentis also thereby placed in the equivocal and undesirable position ofintermeddling in the internal affairs of this Republic, which is inconflict with the London Convention. Had the complaints been lodged withthis Government, or with the proper officials or Courts, the facts couldhave been very easily arrived at, and it would have been proved thatthe few officials who were present at the meeting as a section of thepublic had done their best to prevent the irregularities, and that someof them had been hurt in their endeavours to preserve order. 

Instead of expressing their disapproval of such complaints, andreferring the petitioners to the local Courts, Her Majesty's Governmentaccepts those complaints, and gives them an official character byforwarding them for the information of this Government, and bypublishing them in blue books for the information of the world. 

Her Majesty's Government will readily acknowledge that there is no Statein the world with any sense of dignity, however weak and insignificantit may be, which can regard such matters with an indifferent eye; andwhen the relations of the two Governments are strained, then themainspring must be looked for in this action of its subjects, which isnot disapproved of by Her Majesty's Government, and not in imaginary ortrumped-up grievances. 

The Edgar case is referred to by your Government as "the most strikingrecent instance of arbitrary action by officials, and of the support ofsuch action by the Courts, " and this case is quoted as a conclusive testof the alleged judicial maladministration of this Republic; it willtherefore be of interest to pause for a moment and consider it. What arethe true facts?

A certain Foster, "an Englishman, " was assaulted and felled to theground, without any lawful cause, by a man named Edgar during the nightof the 18th December, 1898; he lay on the ground as if dead, andultimately died in the hospital. Edgar escaped to his room, and somepolice came on the scene, attracted by the screams of the bystanders. Amongst the police was one named Jones. When they saw the man who hadbeen assaulted lying as if dead, they went to Edgar's apartments inorder to arrest him as a criminal (he had indeed rendered himself liablefor manslaughter, and apparently for murder). As he was caught in thevery act, the police officers were, according to the Laws not only ofthis Republic, but of all South Africa and of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Ireland, justified in breaking open the door in orderto arrest the culprit. While doing so, Edgar, with a dangerous weapon, struck Jones a severe blow. Under the stress of necessity the lattershot Edgar, from the effects of which he died. The question is not ifJones was justified in taking this extreme step, for the State Attorneyof the Republic had already given effect to his opinion that this was acase for the jury by prosecuting him for manslaughter. The question issolely whether any jury in any country in the world would have found aman guilty of any crime under the circumstances set forth, and whether, if they did not find him guilty, the fact of their doing so would havebeen stamped and branded as a flagrant and remarkable instance of themaladministration of justice. 

This Government is convinced that the English Judicial administrationaffords numberless instances where the facts are as strong as in thiscase, and it cannot see why an occurrence which could happen in any partof the world should be especially thrown in their teeth in the form ofan accusation. 

This Government does not wish to pass over in silence the censure whichhas been passed by Her Majesty's Government on the Public Prosecutor ofJohannesburg, by whom the prosecution of this case was conducted; thefact that he is of pure English blood, that he received his legaltraining in London, that he is generally respected by the Uitlanderpopulation on account of his ability, impartiality, and generalcharacter, will naturally not be of any weight with Her Majesty'sGovernment against the facts of his action in calling witnesses for theprosecution who were intended for the defence, and thus rendering animaginary cross-examination abortive. 

This Government only wishes to point out that the fact that the Edgarcase is the strongest which Her Majesty's Government has been able toquote against the administration of justice in this Republic affords thestrongest and most eloquent proof possible that, taking it in general, the administration of justice on the gold fields of this Republic notonly compares favourably with that on other and similar gold fields, buteven with that of old and settled countries. 

The untrue representations of this occurrence in the Press proveconclusively that the newspapers of the Witwatersrand, theatrocity-mongering tactics of which constitute a share of the organisedcampaign against the Republic and its Government, have been compelled toresort to mendacious criticisms on imaginary instances ofmaladministration which were often simply invented. Where the Press isforced to adopt such methods, the true grievances must of necessity beunreal. 

Her Majesty's Government now proceeds to discuss certain laws of thisRepublic, with the object of showing that the Uitlander population isalso oppressed by the legislature of this country, the Press Law, theAliens Expulsion Law, and Law No. 1 of 1897 being especially instanced. But it can also be proved that the population of the gold fields have nosolid grounds of complaint in regard to the laws in question. 

Respecting the existing Press Laws, No. 26 of 1896, and No. 14 of 1898, it is necessary to remark that no printer, issuer, or editor of anewspaper can be prosecuted unless he has made himself guilty ofcriminal libel, so that the principle of the Grondwet of 1858 has inthis respect been rigidly adhered to. Her Majesty's Government will atonce see that these laws cannot in any way bear harshly upon the writingpublic, a fact which is clearly borne out by the way in which thenewspapers of this country are edited. Nowhere else in the world has theliberty of the Press so degenerated into license. No newspaper in anycountry in the world would for one moment dare to speak of theGovernment, the Legislature, and authorities of the country as the_Star_, the _Transvaal Leader_, and similar newspapers do every day inthis Republic. 

The imaginary nature of these grievances is not dispelled by the factthat the power is vested in the State President of prohibiting eitherentirely or provisionally the circulation of any printed matter which iscontrary to good morals or public order, because the very same SupremeCourt, which in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government only exists atthe mercy of this Government, has pronounced that it has no power toprohibit the circulation of any newspaper; the freedom of the regularPress thus remains as unrestricted as under the old Grondwet. 

As a matter of fact, any person who has any practical experience of thePress of this Republic will regard the accusation as ridiculous, and asevincing an entire ignorance of the true facts. This power has not beenexercised by the Judges on many occasions, but only once, and in thatinstance the High Court annulled the decision. 

With regard to the Aliens Expulsion Law, this, like the Press Law, oughtto be estimated according to its spirit and operation. Since this lawhas come into force the State President has only on one occasion madeuse of the power vested in him of expelling an undesirable individual, and his action was endorsed by the approval of the Press and the publicof the country. As similar laws exist in nearly every civilised countryin the world, it is difficult to see why such a law in this Republicshould prove so objectionable in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government. 

With regard to Law No. 1 of 1897, and the dismissal of Chief JusticeKotze by virtue of its provisions, this Government can only state thatit was with the bitterest regret that it felt itself compelled, inconsequence of the arbitrary action of the said Chief Justice, to takecomprehensive measures in order to prevent absolute constitutional andjudicial disorder and chaos. It was an instance where a Chief Justice inconflict with a law existing for, at least, forty years, and in directcontradiction of his own decisions, suddenly adopted and applied a newprinciple, which affected the legality of the laws of the Republic, andproduced real constitutional chaos. Would not any other Government undersimilar circumstances have done exactly what this Republic did, namely, pass a special law in this unusual case, in order to remove theexceptional difficulties?

This law was only applicable to this particular instance, and becameinoperative immediately after its application; and this Governmentcannot understand how suspicion can therefore fall upon the impartialadministration of Justice in this Republic. If the Government hadacquiesced in the position taken up by the late Chief Justice, then alltitles dependent upon Volksraad resolutions would have been called inquestion, which would not only have dealt a heavy blow to existingrights, but also have plunged the administration of Justice in greatuncertainty and doubt. 

By this law the Judges, instead of being brought under the influence ofthe Executive Council, were really placed in the same constitutionalposition as any Judge in the Supreme Court of England, who is unable toquestion the validity of any law. 

This Government has now traversed the various contentions of HerMajesty's Government, which have been submitted in order to prove thatthe policy of this Government, with regard to the Uitlander populationand the administration of the laws, especially on the gold fields, arethe causes of the strained relationship at present existing between thetwo Governments. 

This Government believes that this explanation and answer will clearlyshow that these causes are in no way sufficient to have resulted in theaforesaid tension. It is of opinion that the source of evil must besought for elsewhere, and it trusts that Her Majesty's Government willnot take it in bad part if it now proceeds to explain what the real rootof the evil is from its point of view; and in the first place it remarksas a very noticeable and prominent fact that although there arethousands of subjects of other Powers in Johannesburg, there are fewcomplaints heard from them or from their Governments about the so-calledgrievances of the Uitlanders. If these grievances existed in reality, and if they pressed equally on all so-called Uitlanders (and HerMajesty's Government does not contend that in this respect a differenceis made between British subjects and subjects of other Powers), how doesit happen that the complaints always come from British subjects, andthat the subjects of other Powers, as a rule, express their sympathywith this Government and promise it their support?

But this Government wishes to go further. Even in regard to thoseUitlanders who are British subjects, it is a small minority which, underthe pretext of imaginary grievances, promotes a secret propaganda ofrace hatred, and uses the Republic as a base for fomenting arevolutionary movement against this Government. Ministers of Her Majestyhave so trenchantly expressed the truth about this minority that thisGovernment wishes to quote the very words of these Ministers with theobject of bringing the actual truth to the knowledge of Her Majesty'sGovernment, as well as to that of the whole world, and not for thepurpose of making groundless accusations. 

The following words are those of the Ministers of the Cape Colony, whoare well acquainted with local conditions and fully qualified to arriveat a conclusion:--

"In the opinion of Ministers the persistent action, both beyond andwithin this Colony, of the political body styling itself the SouthAfrican League in endeavouring to foment and excite, not to smooth andallay, ill-will between the two principal European races inhabitingSouth Africa is well illustrated by these resolutions, the exaggeratedand aggravated terms of which disclose the spirit which informs andinspires them. 

"His Excellency's Ministers are one in their earnest desire to do all intheir power to aid and further a policy of peaceful progress throughoutSouth Africa, and they cannot but regard it as an unwise propagandism, hostile to the true interests of the Empire, including this Colony as anintegral part, that every possible occasion should be seized by theLeague and its promoters for an attempt to magnify into greater eventsminor incidents when occurring in the South African Republic, with aprospect thereby of making racial antagonism more acute, or ofrendering less smooth the relations between Her Majesty's Government orthe Government of this Colony and that Republic. "

Race hatred is, however, not so intense in South Africa as to enable abody with this propaganda, aiming at revolutionary objects, to obtainmuch influence in this part of the world; and one continually asksoneself the question--"How is it that a body so insignificant, both inregard to its principles and its membership, enjoys such a large measureof influence?" The answer is that this body depends upon the protectionand the support of Her Majesty's Government in England, and that bothits members and its organs in the Press openly boast of the influencethey exercise over the policy of Her Majesty's Government. ThisGovernment would ignore such assertions, but when it finds that theideas and the shibboleths of the South African League are continuallyechoed in the speeches of members of H. M. Government, when it finds thatblue books are compiled chiefly from documents prepared by officials ofthe South African League, as well as from reports and leading articlescontaining "malignant lies" taken from the Press organs of thatorganisation, thereby receiving an official character, then thisGovernment can well understand why so many of Her Majesty's right-mindedsubjects in this part of the world have obtained the impression that thepolicy advocated by the South African League is supported by HerMajesty's Government, and is thus calculated to contribute to thewelfare and blessing of the British Empire. 

If this mistaken impression could be removed, and if it could beannounced as a fact that the South African League, as far as its actionsin the South African Republic are concerned, is only an organisationhaving as its object the fomentation of strife and disorder and thedestruction of the independence of the country, then it would very soonlose its influence, and the strained relations existing between the twoGovernments would quickly disappear. The Africander population of thiscountry would not then be under the apprehension that the interests ofthe British Empire imperatively demand that the Republic should be doneaway with and its people be either _enslaved_ or _exterminated_. Bothsections of the white inhabitants of South Africa would then return tothe fraternal co-operation and fusion which was beginning to manifestitself when the treacherous conspiracy at the end of 1895 awakened thepassions on both sides. 

APPENDIX D. 

THE FINAL DISPATCH OF MR. STATE SECRETARY REITZ. 

ENCLOSURE. 

 DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OFFICE, PRETORIA, _3rd March_, 1899. 

Sir, Acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 11th inst. _re_ themeeting of the South African League held in the Amphitheatre atJohannesburg on the 14th January, 1899, I have the honour to communicatethe following to you. 

The complaint that the Government, or its duly authorised officials, have acted with partiality in this matter is entirely devoid of truth, and this Government regrets that such an unfounded and insultingaccusation should have been made nearly a month after the occurrence inquestion. 

Messrs. Dodd and Webb have been duly arrested and committed for trial onaccount of what took place on the 24th December, 1898, upon swornaffidavits which left nothing else for the proper officials to do but toprosecute. 

With reference to the Amphitheatre occurrence, not a single Britishsubject has lodged a sworn complaint against anybody with the properofficials, so that it can hardly be expected that this Government shouldnow take any steps against the alleged disturbers of the peace. 

Regarding the accusation that officials of this Government havecontributed to the instigation of uproar on the said occasion, thisGovernment can only state that no complaints have been made to it or theproper authorities, either from British subjects or from subjects ofother Powers, so that this Government, to its regret, can do nothing inthis matter. In case, however, of such complaints being lodged with theproper authorities, the Courts of the country are open to them. 

 I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, F. W. REITZ, _State Secretary. _

_To_ THE HON. CUNYNGHAME GREENE, C. B. , _British Agent, Pretoria. _

APPENDIX E. 

CONVENTIONS BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND THE TRANSVAAL OR SOUTHAFRICAN REPUBLIC. 

SAND RIVER CONVENTION, 1852. 

Minutes of a meeting held in the place of Mr. P. A. Venter, Sand River, on Friday, the sixteenth day of January, 1852, between Major W. Hoggeand C. M. Owen, Esq. , Her Majesty's Assistant Commissioners, for thesettling and adjusting of the affairs of the eastern and north-easternboundaries of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope on the one part, andthe following deputation from the emigrant farmers residing north of theVaal River:

 A. W. J. PRETORIUS, Commandant-General. H. S. LOMBARD, Landdrost. W. F. JOUBERT, Commandant-General. G. J. KRUGER, Commandant. J. N. GROBBELAAR, Raadslid. P. E. SCHOLTZ. P. G. WOLMARANS, Ouderling. J. A. VAN ASWEGAN, Veld-cornet. F. J. BOTES, do. N. J. S. BASSON, do. J. P. FURSTENBERG, do. J. P. PRETORIUS. J. H. GROBBELAAR. J. M. LEHMAN. P. SCHUTTE. J. C. KLOPPERS: on the other part. 

The Assistant Commissioners guarantee in the fullest manner, on the partof the British Government, to the emigrant farmers beyond the Vaal Riverthe right to maintain their own affairs, and to govern themselvesaccording to their own laws without any interference on the part of theBritish Government, and that no encroachment shall be made by the saidGovernment on the territory beyond to the north of the Vaal River, withthe further assurance that the warmest wish of the British Government isto promote peace, free trade, and friendly intercourse with theemigrant farmers now inhabiting or who hereafter may inhabit thatcountry, it being understood that this system of non-interference isbinding upon both parties. 

Should any misunderstanding hereafter arise as to the true meaning ofthe words "the Vaal River, " this question in so far as regards the linefrom the source of that river over the Drakenberg shall be settled andadjusted by Commissioners chosen by both parties. 

Her Majesty's Assistant Commissioners hereby disclaim all allianceswhatever and with whomsoever of the coloured nations to the north of theVaal River. 

It is agreed that no slavery is or shall be permitted or practised inthe country to the north of the Vaal River by the emigrant farmers. 

Mutual facilities and liberties shall be afforded to traders andtravellers on both sides of the Vaal River, it being understood thatevery waggon containing ammunition and firearms coming from the southside of the Vaal River shall produce a certificate signed by a Britishmagistrate or other functionary duly authorised to grant such, and whichshall state the quantities of such articles contained in said waggon tothe nearest magistrate north of the Vaal River, who shall act in thecase as the regulations of the emigrant farmers direct. It is agreedthat no objection shall be made by any British authority against theemigrant Boers purchasing their supplies of ammunition in any of theBritish Colonies and possessions of South Africa, it being mutuallyunderstood that all trade in ammunition with the native tribes isprohibited both by the British Government and the emigrant farmers onboth sides of the Vaal River. 

It is agreed that so far as possible all criminals and other guiltyparties who may fly from justice either way across the Vaal River shallbe mutually delivered up if such should be required, and that theBritish courts as well as those of the emigrant farmers shall bemutually open to each other for all legitimate processes, and thatsummonses for witnesses sent either way across the Vaal River shall bebacked by the magistrates, on each side of the same respectively, tocompel the attendance of such witnesses when required. 

It is agreed that certificates of marriage issued by the properauthorities of the emigrant farmers shall be held valid and sufficientto entitle children of such marriages to receive portions accruing tothem in any British Colony or possession in South Africa. 

It is agreed that any and every person now in possession of land, andresiding in British territory, shall have free right and power to sellhis said property and remove unmolested across the Vaal River, and _viceversâ_, it being distinctly understood that this arrangement does notcomprehend criminals or debtors, without providing for the payment oftheir just and lawful debts. 

This done and signed at Sand River aforesaid, this 17th day of January, 1852. 

 (Signed) A. W. J. PRETORIUS, Comdt. -General. H. S. LOMBARD, Landdrost. W. F. JOUBERT, Commandant-General. G. J. KRUGER, Commandant. W. I. HOGGE, Assistant Commissioner. C. MOSTYN OWEN, Assistant Commissioner. J. N. GROBBELAAR, R. L. P. E. SCHOLTZ. P. G. WOLMARANS, Ouderling. J. A. VAN ASWEGAN, Veld Cornet. F. J. BOTES. N. J. S. BASSON, Veld Cornet. J. P. FURSTENBERG, Veld Cornet. J. P. PRETORIUS. J. H. GROBBELAAR. J. M. LEHMAN. P. SCHUTTE. J. C. KLOPPERS. In presence of-- (Signed) JOHN BURNET, Clerk to the Civil Commissioner of Winburg. (Signed) J. H. VISAGIE, Secretary. 

 * * * * *

CONVENTION OF PRETORIA, 1881. 

Preamble. Her Majesty's Commissioners for the Settlement of theTransvaal territory, duly appointed as such by a Commission passed underthe Royal Sign Manual and Signet, bearing date the 5th of April, 1881, do hereby undertake and guarantee on behalf of Her Majesty that, fromand after the 8th day of August, 1881, complete self-government, subjectto the suzerainty of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, will beaccorded to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, upon thefollowing terms and conditions, and subject to the followingreservations and limitations:--

Article I. The said territory, to be hereinafter called the TransvaalState, will embrace the land lying between the following boundaries, towit: [here follow three pages in print defining boundaries. ]

Article 2. Her Majesty reserves to herself, her heirs andsuccessors--(_a_), the right from time to time to appoint a BritishResident in and for the said State, with such duties and functions asare hereinafter defined; (_b_), the right to move troops through thesaid State in time of war, or in case of the apprehension of immediatewar between the Suzerain Power and any Foreign State or Native Tribe inSouth Africa; and (_c_) the control of the external relations of thesaid State, including the conclusion of treaties and the conduct ofdiplomatic intercourse with Foreign Powers, such intercourse to becarried on through Her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officersabroad. 

Article 3. Until altered by the Volksraad, or other competent authority, all laws, whether passed before or after the Annexation of the Transvaalterritory to Her Majesty's dominions, shall, except in so far as theyare inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this Convention, be and remain in force in the said State in so far as they shall beapplicable thereto, provided that no future enactment especiallyaffecting the interest of natives shall have any force or effect in thesaid State, without the consent of Her Majesty, her heirs andsuccessors, first had and obtained and signified to the Government ofthe said State through the British Resident, provided further that in nocase will the repeal or amendment of any laws enacted since theAnnexation have a retrospective effect, so as to invalidate any actsdone or liabilities incurred by virtue of such laws. 

Article 4. On the 8th day of August, 1881, the Government of the saidState, together with all rights and obligations thereto appertaining, and all State property taken over at the time of Annexation, save andexcept munitions of war, will be handed over to Messrs. StephanusJohannes Paulus Kruger, Martinus Wessel Pretorius, and Petrus JacobusJoubert, or the survivor or survivors of them, who will forthwith causea Volksraad to be elected and convened, and the Volksraad, thus electedand convened, will decide as to the further administration of theGovernment of the said State. 

Article 5. All sentences passed upon persons who may be convicted ofoffences contrary to the rules of civilised warfare committed during therecent hostilities will be duly carried out, and no alteration ormitigation of such sentences will be made or allowed by the Governmentof the Transvaal State without Her Majesty's consent conveyed throughthe British Resident. In case there shall be any prisoners in any of thegaols of the Transvaal State whose respective sentences of imprisonmenthave been remitted in part by Her Majesty's Administrator or otherofficer administering the Government, such remission will be recognisedand acted upon by the future Government of the said State. 

Article 6. Her Majesty's Government will make due compensation for alllosses or damage sustained by reason of such acts as are in the 8thArticle hereinafter specified, which may have been committed by HerMajesty's forces during the recent hostilities, except for such lossesor damage as may already have been compensated for; and the Governmentof the Transvaal State will make due compensation for all losses ordamage sustained by reason of such acts as are in the 8th Articlehereinafter specified, which may have been committed by the people whowere in arms against Her Majesty during the recent hostilities, exceptfor such losses or damages as may already have been compensated for. 

Article 7. The decision of all claims for compensation, as in the lastpreceding article mentioned, will be referred to a Sub-Commission, consisting of the Honourable George Hudson, the Honourable JacobusPetrus de Wet, and the Honourable John Gilbert Kotze. In case one ormore of such Sub-Commissioners shall be unable or unwilling to act theremaining Sub-Commissioner or Sub-Commissioners will, after consultationwith the Government of the Transvaal State, submit for the approval ofHer Majesty's High Commissioner the names of one or more persons to beappointed by them to fill the place or places thus vacated. The decisionof the said Sub-Commissioners, or of a majority of them, will be final. The said Sub-Commissioners will enter upon and perform their duties withall convenient speed. They will, before taking evidence or orderingevidence to be taken in respect of any claim, decide whether such claimcan be entertained at all under the rules laid down in the nextsucceeding Article. In regard to claims which can be so entertained theSub-Commissioners will, in the first instance, afford every facility foran amicable arrangement as to the amount payable in respect of anyclaim, and only in cases in which there is no reasonable ground forbelieving that an immediate amicable arrangement can be arrived at willthey take evidence or order evidence to be taken. For the purpose oftaking evidence and reporting thereon, the Sub-Commissioners may appointDeputies, who will, without delay, submit records of the evidence andtheir reports to the Sub-Commissioners. The Sub-Commissioners willarrange their sittings and the sittings of their Deputies in such amanner as to afford the earliest convenience to the parties concernedand their witnesses. In no case will costs be allowed to either side, other than the actual and reasonable expenses of witnesses whoseevidence is certified by the Sub-Commissioners to have been necessary. Interest will not run on the amount of any claim, except as ishereinafter provided for. The said Sub-Commissioners will forthwith, after deciding upon any claim, announce their decision to the Governmentagainst which the award is made and to the claimant. The amount ofremuneration payable to the Sub-Commissioners and their Deputies will bedetermined by the High Commissioners. After all the claims have beendecided upon, the British Government and the Government of the TransvaalState will pay proportionate shares of the said remuneration and of theexpenses of the Sub-Commissioners and their Deputies, according to theamount awarded against them respectively. 

Article 8. For the purpose of distinguishing claims to be accepted fromthose to be rejected, the Sub-Commissioners will be guided by thefollowing rules, viz. :--Compensation will be allowed for losses ordamage sustained by reason of the following acts committed during therecent hostilities, viz. , (_a_), commandering, seizure, confiscation, ordestruction of property, or damage done to property; (_b_), violencedone or threats used by persons in arms. In regard to acts under (_a_), compensation will be allowed for direct losses only. In regard to actsfalling under (_b_), compensation will be allowed for actual losses ofproperty, or actual injury to the same proved to have been caused by itsenforced abandonment. No claims for indirect losses, except such as arein this Article specially provided for, will be entertained. No claimswhich have been handed in to the Secretary of the Royal Commission afterthe 1st day of July, 1881, will be entertained, unless theSub-Commissioners shall be satisfied that the delay was reasonable. Whenclaims for loss of property are considered, the Sub-Commissioners willrequire distinct proof of the existence of the property, and that itneither has reverted nor will revert to the claimant. 

Article 9. The Government of the Transvaal State will pay and satisfythe amount of every claim awarded against it within one month after theSub-Commissioners shall have notified their decision to the saidGovernment, and in default of such payment the said Government will payinterest at the rate of six per cent. Per annum from the date of suchdefault; but Her Majesty's Government may at any time before suchpayment pay the amount, with interest, if any, to the claimant insatisfaction of his claim, and may add the sum thus paid to any debtwhich may be due by the Transvaal State to Her Majesty's Government, ashereinafter provided for. 

Article 10. The Transvaal State will be liable for the balance of thedebts for which the South African Republic was liable at the date ofAnnexation, to wit, the sum of £48, 000 in respect of the Cape CommercialBank Loan, and £85, 667 in respect to the Railway Loan, together with theamount due on 8th August, 1881, on account of the Orphan Chamber Debt, which now stands at £22, 200, which debts will be a first charge upon therevenues of the State. The Transvaal State will, moreover, be liable forthe lawful expenditure lawfully incurred for the necessary expenses ofthe Province since the Annexation, to wit, the sum of £265, 000, whichdebt, together with such debts as may be incurred by virtue of the 9thArticle, will be second charge upon the revenues of the State. 

Article 11. The debts due as aforesaid by the Transvaal State to HerMajesty's Government will bear interest at the rate of three and a-halfper cent. , and any portion of such debt as may remain unpaid at theexpiration of twelve months from the 8th August, 1881, shall berepayable by a payment for interest and sinking fund of six pounds andninepence per cent, per annum, which will extinguish the debt intwenty-five years. The said payment of six pounds and ninepence per £100shall be payable half yearly in British currency on the 8th February and8th August in each year. Provided always that the Transvaal State shallpay in reduction of the said debt the sum of £100, 000 within twelvemonths of the 8th August, 1881, and shall be at liberty at the close ofany half year to pay off the whole or any portion of the outstandingdebt. 

Article 12. All persons holding property in the said State on the 8thday of August, 1881, will continue after the said date to enjoy therights of property which they have enjoyed since the Annexation. Noperson who has remained loyal to Her Majesty during the recenthostilities shall suffer any molestation by reason of his loyalty, or beliable to any criminal prosecution or civil action for any part taken inconnexion with such hostilities, and all such persons will have fullliberty to reside in the country, with enjoyment of all civil rights, and protection for their persons and property. 

Article 13. Natives will be allowed to acquire land, but the grant ortransfer of such land will, in every case, be made to and registered inthe name of the Native Location Commission, hereinafter mentioned, intrust for such natives. 

Article 14. Natives will be allowed to move as freely within the countryas may be consistent with the requirements of public order, and to leaveit for the purpose of seeking employment elsewhere or for other lawfulpurposes, subject always to the pass laws of the said State, as amendedby the Legislature of the Province, or as may hereafter be enacted underthe provisions of the Third Article of this Convention. 

Article 15. There will continue to be complete freedom of religion andprotection from molestation for all denominations, provided the same benot inconsistent with morality and good order, and no disability shallattach to any person in regard to rights of property by reason of thereligious opinions which he holds. 

Article 16. The provisions of the Fourth Article of the Sand RiverConvention are hereby re-affirmed, and no slavery or apprenticeshippartaking of slavery will be tolerated by the Government of the saidState. 

Article 17. The British Resident will receive from the Government of theTransvaal State such assistance and support as can by law be given tohim for the due discharge of his functions; he will also receive everyassistance for the proper care and preservation of the graves of such ofHer Majesty's forces as have died in the Transvaal, and if need be, forthe expropriation of land for the purpose. 

Article 18. The following will be the duties and functions of theBritish Resident:--

Sub-section 1. He will perform duties and functions analogous to thosedischarged by a Charge d'Affaires and Consul-General. 

Sub-section 2. In regard to natives within the Transvaal State he will(_a_) report to the High Commissioner, as representative of theSuzerain, as to the working and observance of the provisions of thisConvention; (_b_), report to the Transvaal authorities any cases ofill-treatment of natives or attempts to incite natives to rebellion thatmay come to his knowledge; (_c_), use his influence with the natives infavour of law and order; and (_d_), generally perform such other dutiesas are by this Convention entrusted to him, and take such steps for theprotection of the person and property of natives as are consistent withthe laws of the land. 

Sub-section 3. In regard to natives not residing in the Transvaal (_a_)he will report to the High Commissioner and the Transvaal Government anyencroachments reported to him as having been made by Transvaal residentsupon the land of such natives, and in case of disagreement between theTransvaal Government and the British Resident as to whether anencroachment has been made, the decision of the Suzerain will be final;(_b_) the British Resident will be the medium of communication withnative chiefs outside the Transvaal, and, subject to the approval of theHigh Commissioner, as representing the Suzerain, he will control theconclusion of treaties with them; and (_c_) he will arbitrate upon everydispute with Transvaal residents and natives outside the Transvaal (asto acts committed beyond the boundaries of the Transvaal) which may bereferred to him by the parties interested. 

Sub-section 4. In regard to communications with foreign powers, theTransvaal Government will correspond with Her Majesty's Governmentthrough the British Resident and the High Commissioner. 

Article 19. The Government of the Transvaal State will strictly adhereto the boundaries defined in the First Article of this Convention, andwill do its utmost to prevent any of its inhabitants from making anyencroachment upon lands beyond the said State. The Royal Commission willforthwith appoint a person who will beacon off the boundary line betweenRamatlabama and the point where such line first touches Griqualand Westboundary, midway between the Vaal and Hart Rivers; the person soappointed will be instructed to make an arrangement between the ownersof the farms Grootfontein and Valleifontein on the one hand, and theBarolong authorities on the other, by which a fair share of the watersupply of the said farms shall be allowed to flow undisturbed to thesaid Barolongs. 

Article 20. All grants or titles issued at any time by the TransvaalGovernment in respect of land outside the boundary of Transvaal State, as defined, Article 1, shall be considered invalid and of no effect, except in so far as any such grant or title relates to land that fallswithin the boundary of the Transvaal State, and all persons holding anysuch grant so considered invalid and of no effect will receive from theGovernment of the Transvaal State such compensation either in land or inmoney as the Volksraad shall determine. In all cases in which anynative chiefs or other authorities outside the said boundaries havereceived any adequate consideration from the Government of the formerSouth African Republic for land excluded from the Transvaal by the FirstArticle of this Convention, or where permanent improvements have beenmade on the land, the British Resident will, subject to the approval ofthe High Commissioner, use his influence to recover from the nativeauthorities fair compensation for the loss of the land thus excluded, and of the permanent improvement thereon. 

Article 21. Forthwith, after the taking effect of this Convention, aNative Location Commission will be constituted, consisting of thePresident, or in his absence the Vice-President, of the State, or someone deputed by him, the Resident, or some one deputed by him, and athird person to be agreed upon by the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, and the Resident, and such Commission will be astanding body for the performance of the duties hereinafter mentioned. 

Article 22. The Native Location Commission will reserve to the nativetribes of the State such locations as they may be fairly and equitablyentitled to, due regard being had to the actual occupation of suchtribes. The Native Location Commission will clearly define theboundaries of such locations, and for that purpose will, in everyinstance, first of all ascertain the wishes of the parties interested insuch land. In case land already granted in individual titles shall berequired for the purpose of any location, the owners will receive suchcompensation either in other land or in money as the Volksraad shalldetermine. After the boundaries of any location have been fixed, nofresh grant of land within such location will be made, nor will theboundaries be altered without the consent of the Location Commission. Nofresh grants of land will be made in the districts of Waterberg, Zoutpansberg, and Lydenburg until the locations in the said districtsrespectively shall have been defined by the said Commission. 

Article 23. If not released before the taking effect of this Convention, Sikukuni, and those of his followers who have been imprisoned with him, will be forthwith released, and the boundaries of his location will bedefined by the Native Location Commission in the manner indicated in thelast preceding Article. 

Article 24. The independence of the Swazies within the boundary line ofSwaziland, as indicated in the First Article of this Convention, will befully recognised. 

Article 25. No other or higher duties will be imposed on theimportation into the Transvaal State of any article, the produce ormanufacture of the dominions and possessions of Her Majesty, fromwhatever place arriving, than are or may be payable on the like article, the produce or manufacture of any other country, nor will anyprohibition be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article, the produce or manufacture of the dominions and possessions of HerMajesty, which shall not equally extend to the importation of the likearticles, being the produce or manufacture of any other country. 

Article 26. All persons other than natives conforming themselves to thelaws of the Transvaal State (_a_) will have full liberty with theirfamilies to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the Transvaal State;(_b_) they will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactures, warehouses, shops, and premises; (_c_) they may carry on their commerceeither in person or by any agents whom they may think to employ; (_d_)they will not be subject in respect of their persons or property, or inrespect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general orlocal, other than those which are or may be imposed upon Transvaalcitizens. 

Article 27. All inhabitants of the Transvaal shall have free access tothe Courts of Justice for the protection and defence of their rights. 

Article 28. All persons other than natives who established theirdomicile in the Transvaal between the 12th day of April, 1877, and thedate when this Convention conies into effect, and who shall withintwelve months after such last-mentioned date have their names registeredby the British Resident, shall be exempt from all compulsory militaryservice whatever. The Resident shall notify such registration to theGovernment of the Transvaal State. 

Article 29. Provision shall hereafter be made by a separate instrumentfor the mutual extradition of criminals, and also for the surrender ofdeserters from Her Majesty's forces. 

Article 30. All debts contracted since the Annexation will be payable inthe same currency in which they may have been contracted; alluncancelled postage and other revenue stamps issued by the Governmentsince the Annexation will remain valid, and will be accepted at theirpresent value by the future Government of the State; all licenses dulyissued since the Annexation will remain in force during the period forwhich they may have been issued. 

Article 31. No grants of land which may have been made, and no transferof mortgage which may have been passed since the Annexation, will beinvalidated by reason merely of their having been made or passed sincethat date. All transfers to the British Secretary for Native Affairs intrust for natives will remain in force, the Native Location Commissiontaking the place of such Secretary for Native Affairs. 

Article 32. This Convention will be ratified by a newly-electedVolksraad within the period of three months after its execution, and indefault of such ratification this Convention shall be null and void. 

Article 33. Forthwith, after the ratification of this Convention, as inthe last preceding Article mentioned, all British troops in Transvaalterritory will leave the same, and the mutual delivery of munitions ofwar will be carried out. 

Articles end. Here will follow signatures of Royal Commissioners; thenthe following, to precede signatures of triumvirate. 

We, the undersigned, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Krugen Martinus WesselPretorius, and Petrus Jacobus Joubert, as representatives of theTransvaal Burghers, do hereby agree to all the above conditions, reservations, and limitations under which self-government has beenrestored to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, subject to thesuzerainty of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and we agree toaccept the Government of the said territory, with all rights andobligations thereto appertaining, on the 8th day of August; and wepromise and undertake that this Convention shall be ratified by anewly-elected Volksraad of the Transvaal State within three months fromthis date. 

 * * * * *

LONDON CONVENTION, 1884. 

A CONVENTION BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OFGREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. 

Whereas the Government of the Transvaal State, through its Delegates, consisting of Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, President of the saidState, Stephanus Jacobus Du Toit, Superintendent of Education, andNicholas Jacobus Smit, a member of the Volksraad, have represented thatthe Convention signed at Pretoria on the 3rd day of August, 1881, andratified by the Volksraad of the said State on the 25th October, 1881, contains certain provisions which are inconvenient, and imposes burdensand obligations from which the said State is desirous to be relieved, and that the south-western boundaries fixed by the said Conventionshould be amended, with a view to promote the peace and good order ofthe said State, and of the countries adjacent thereto; and whereas HerMajesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland hasbeen pleased to take the said representations into consideration: Now, therefore, Her Majesty has been pleased to direct, and it is herebydeclared, that the following articles of a new Convention, signed onbehalf of Her Majesty by Her Majesty's High Commissioner in SouthAfrica, the Right Honourable Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, KnightGrand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and SaintGeorge, Governor of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and on behalfof the Transvaal State (which shall hereinafter be called the SouthAfrican Republic) by the above-named Delegates, Stephanus JohannesPaulus Kruger, Stephanos Jacobus Du Toit, and Nicholas Jacobus Smit, shall, when ratified by the Volksraad of the South African Republic, besubstituted for the articles embodied in the Convention of 3rd August, 1881; which latter, pending such ratification, shall continue in fullforce and effect. 

Article 1. The Territory of the South African Republic will embrace theland lying between the following boundaries, to wit:--

Beginning from the point where the north-eastern boundary line ofGriqualand meets the Vaal River, up the course of the Vaal River to thepoint of junction with it of the Klip River; thence up the course of theKlip River to the point of junction with it of the stream calledGansvlei; thence up the Gansvlei stream to its source in theDrakensberg; thence to a beacon in the boundary of Natal, situatedimmediately opposite and close to the source of the Gansvlei stream;thence in a north-easterly direction along the ridge of the Drakensberg, dividing the waters flowing into the Gansvlei stream from the watersflowing into the sources of the Buffalo, to a beacon on a point wherethis mountain ceases to be a continuous chain; thence to a beacon on aplain to the north-east of the last described beacon; thence to thenearest source of a small stream called "Division Stream"; thence downthis division stream, which forms the southern boundary of the farmSandfontein, the property of Messrs. Meek, to its junction with theColdstream; thence down the Coldstream to its junction with the Buffaloor Umzinyati River; thence down the course of the Buffalo River to thejunction with it of the Blood River; thence up the course of the BloodRiver to the junction with it of Lyn Spruit or Dudusi; thence up theDudusi to its source; thence 80 yards to Bea. I. , situated on a spur ofthe N'Qaba-Ka-hawana Mountains; thence 80 yards to the N'Sonto River;thence down the N'Sonto River to its junction with the White UmvuloziRiver; thence up the White Umvulozi River to a white rock where itrises; thence 800 yards to Kambula Hill (Bea. II. ); thence to the sourceof the Pemvana River, where the road from Kambula Camp to Burgers' Lagercrosses; thence down the Pemvana River to its junction with the BivanaRiver; thence down the Bivana River to its junction with the PongoloRiver; thence down the Pongolo River to where it passes through theLibombo Range; thence along the summits of the Libombo Range to thenorthern point of the N'Yawos Hill in that range (Bea. XVI. ); thence tothe northern peak of the Inkwakweni Hills (Bea. XV. ); thence to Sefunda, a rocky knoll detached from and to the north-east end of the WhiteKoppies, and to the south of the Musana River (Bea. XIV. ); thence to apoint on the slope near the crest of Matanjeni, which is the name givento the south-eastern portion of the Mahamba Hills (Bea. XIII. ); thenceto the N'gwangwana, a double-pointed hill (one point is bare, the otherwooded, the beacon being on the former) on the left bank of the AssegaiRiver and upstream of the Dadusa Spruit (Bea. XII. ); thence to thesouthern point of Bendita, a rocky knoll in a plain between the LittleHlozane and Assegaai Rivers (Bea. XI. ); thence to the highest point ofSuluka Hill, round the eastern slopes of which flows the Little Hlozane, also called Ludaka or Mudspruit (Bea. X. ); thence to the beacon known as"Viljoen's, " or N'Duko Hill; thence to a point north-east of DerbyHouse, known as Magwazidili's Beacon; thence to the Igaba, a small knollon the Ungwempisi River, also called "Joubert's Beacon, " and known tothe natives as "Piet's Beacon" (Bea. IX. ); thence to the highest pointof the N'Dhlovudwalili or Houtbosch, a hill on the northern bank of theUmqwempisi River (Bea. VIII. ); thence to a beacon on the onlyflat-topped rock, about 10 feet high and about 30 yards in circumferenceat its base, situated on the south side of the Lamsamane range of hills, and overlooking the valley of the great Usuto River, this rock being 45yards north of the road from Camden and Lake Banagher to the forests onthe Usuto River (sometimes called Sandhlanas Beacon) (Bea. VII. ); thenceto the Gulungwana or Ibubulundi, four smooth bare hills, the highest inthat neighbourhood, situated to the south of the Umtuli River (Bea. VI. ); thence to a flat-topped rock, 8 feet high, on the crest of theBusuku, a low rocky range south-west of the Impulazi River (Bea. V. );thence to a low bare hill on the north-east of and overlooking theImpulazi River, to the south of it being a tributary of the Impulazi, with a considerable waterfall, and the road from the river passing 200yards to the north-west of the beacon (Bea. IV. ); thence to the highestpoint of the Mapumula range, the watershed of the Little Usuto River onthe north, and the Umpulazi River on the south, the hill, the top ofwhich is a bare rock, falling abruptly towards the Little Usuto (Bea. III. ); thence to the western point of a double-pointed rocky hill, precipitous on all sides, called Makwana, its top being a bare rock(Bea. II. ); thence to the top of a rugged hill of considerable heightfalling abruptly to the Komati River, this hill being the northernextremity of the Isilotwani range, and separated from the highest peakof the range Inkomokazi (a sharp cone) by a deep neck (Bea. I. ). (On aridge in the straight line between Beacons I. And II. Is an intermediatebeacon). From Beacon I. The boundary runs to a hill across the KomatiRiver, and thence along the crest of the range of hills known as theMakongwa, which runs north-east and south-west, to Kamhlubano Peak;thence in a straight line to Mananga, a point in the Libombo Range, andthence to the nearest point in the Portuguese frontier on the LibomboRange; thence along the summits of the Libombo Range to the middle ofthe poort where the Komati River passes through it, called the lowestKomati Poort; thence in a north by easterly direction to Pokioens Kop, situated on the north side of the Olifant's River, where it passesthrough the ridges; thence about north north-west to the nearest pointof Serra di Chicundo; and thence to the junction of the Pafori Riverwith the Limpopo or Crocodile River; thence up the course of the LimpopoRiver to the point where the Marique River falls into it. Thence up thecourse of the Marique River to "Derde Poort, " where it passes through alow range of hills, called Sikwane, a beacon (No. 10) being erected onthe spur of said range near to and westward of the banks of the river;thence in a straight line through this beacon to a beacon (No. 9)erected on the top of the same range, about 1, 700 yards distant frombeacon No. 10; thence in a straight line to a beacon (No. 8) erected onthe highest point of an isolated hill called Dikgagong, or "WildebeestKop, " situated south-eastward of and about 3-1/3 miles distant from ahigh hill called Moripe; thence in a straight line to a beacon (No. 7)erected on the summit of an isolated hill or "koppie" forming theeastern extremity of the range of hills called Moshweu, situated to thenorthward of and about two miles distant from a large isolated hillcalled Chukudu-Chochwa; thence in a straight line to a beacon (No. 6)erected on the summit of a hill forming part of the same range, Moshweu;thence in a straight line to a beacon (No. 5) erected on the summit of apointed hill in the same range; thence in a straight line to a beacon(No. 4) erected on the summit of the western extremity of the samerange; thence in a straight line to a beacon (No. 3) erected on thesummit of the northern extremity of a low, bushy hill, or "koppie, " nearto and eastward of the Notwane River; thence in a straight line to thejunction of the stream called Metsi-Mash wane with the Notwane River(No. 2); thence up the course of the Notwane River to Sengoma, being thePoort where the river passes through the Dwarsberg Range; thence, asdescribed in the Award given by Lieutenant-Governor Keate, dated October17, 1871, by Pitlanganyane (narrow place), Deboaganka or Schaapkuil, Sibatoul (bare place), and Maclase to Ramatlabama, a pool on a spruitnorth of the Molopo River. From Ramatlabama the boundary shall run tothe summit of an isolated hill, called Leganka; thence in a straightline, passing north-east of a Native Station, near "Buurman's Drift, " onthe Molopo River, to that point on the road from Mosiega to the olddrift, where a road turns out through the Native Station to the newdrift below; thence to "Buurman's Old Drift"; thence in a straight lineto a marked and isolated clump of trees near to and north-west of thedwelling-house of C. Austin, a tenant on the farm "Vleifontein, " No. 117; thence in a straight line to the north-western corner beacon of thefarm "Mooimeisjesfontein, " No. 30; thence along the western line of thesaid farm "Mooimeisjesfontein, " and in prolongation thereof, as far asthe road leading from "Ludik's Drift, " on the Molopo River, past thehomestead of "Mooimeisjesfontein" towards the Salt Pans near HartsRiver; thence along the said road, crossing the direct road fromPolfontein to Sehuba, and until the direct road from Polfontein toLotlakane or Pietfontein is reached; thence along the southern edge ofthe last-named road towards Lotlakane until the first garden grounds ofthat station is reached; thence in a south-westerly direction, skirtingLotlakane, so as to leave it and all its garden ground in nativeterritory, until the road from Lotlakane to Kunana is reached; thencealong the east side, and clear of that road towards Kunana, until thegarden grounds of that station are reached; thence, skirting Kunana, soas to include it and all its garden ground, but no more, in theTransvaal, until the road from Kunana to Mamusa is reached; thence alongthe eastern side and clear of the road towards Mamusa, until a roadturns out towards Taungs; thence along the eastern side and clear of theroad towards Taungs, till the line of the district known as "Stellaland"is reached, about 11 miles from Taungs; thence along the line of thedistrict Stellaland to the Harts River, about 24 miles below Mamusa;thence across Harts River to the junction of the roads from Monthe andPhokwane; thence along the western side and clear of the nearest roadtowards "Koppie Enkel, " an isolated hill about 36 miles from Mamusa, andabout 18 miles north of Christiana, and to the summit of the said hill;thence in a straight line to that point on the north-east boundary ofGriqualand West as beaconed by Mr. Surveyor Ford, where two farms, registered as Nos. 72 and 75, do meet, about midway between the Vaal andHarts Rivers, measured along the said boundary of Griqualand West;thence to the first point where the north-east boundary of GriqualandWest meets the Vaal River. 

Article 2. The Government of the South African Republic will strictlyadhere to the boundaries defined in the first Article of thisConvention, and will do its utmost to prevent any of its inhabitantsfrom making any encroachments upon lands beyond the said boundaries. TheGovernment of the South African Republic will appoint Commissioners uponthe eastern and western borders whose duty it will be strictly to guardagainst irregularities and all trespassing over the boundaries. HerMajesty's Government will, if necessary, appoint Commissioners in thenative territories outside the eastern and western borders of the SouthAfrican Republic to maintain order and prevent encroachments. 

Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South AfricanRepublic will each appoint a person to proceed together to beacon offthe amended south-west boundary as described in Article 1 of thisConvention; and the President of the Orange Free State shall berequested to appoint a referee to whom the said persons shall refer anyquestions on which they may disagree respecting the interpretation ofthe said Article, and the decision of such referee thereon shall befinal. The arrangement already made, under the terms of Article 19 ofthe Convention of Pretoria of the 3rd August, 1881, between the ownersof the farms Grootfontein and Valleifontein on the one hand, and theBarolong authorities on the other, by which a fair share of the watersupply of the said farms shall be allowed to flow undisturbed to thesaid Barolongs, shall continue in force. 

Article 3. If a British officer is appointed to reside at Pretoria orelsewhere within the South African Republic to discharge functionsanalagous to those of a Consular officer he will receive the protectionand assistance of the Republic. 

Article 4. The South African Republic will conclude no treaty orengagement with any State or nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to the eastward or westward of the Republic, until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen. 

Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty'sGovernment shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of suchtreaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon itscompletion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is inconflict with the interests of Great Britain or of any of Her Majesty'spossessions in South Africa. 

Article 5. The South African Republic will be liable for any balancewhich may still remain due of the debts for which it was liable at thedate of Annexation, to wit, the Cape Commercial Bank Loan, the RailwayLoan, and the Orphan Chamber Debt, which debts will be a first chargeupon the revenues of the Republic. The South African Republic willmoreover be liable to Her Majesty's Government for £250, 000, which willbe a second charge upon the revenues of the Republic. 

Article 6. The debt due as aforesaid by the South African Republic toHer Majesty's Government will bear interest at the rate of three anda-half per cent, from the date of the ratification of this Convention, and shall be repayable by a payment for interest and Sinking Fund of sixpounds and ninepence per £100 per annum, which will extinguish the debtin twenty-five years. The said payment of six pounds and ninepence per£100 shall be payable half-yearly, in British currency, at the close ofeach half year from the date of such ratification: Provided always thatthe South African Republic shall be at liberty at the close of any halfyear to pay off the whole or any portion of the outstanding debt. 

Interest at the rate of three and a-half per cent, on the debt asstanding under the Convention of Pretoria shall, as heretofore, be paidto the date of the ratification of this Convention. 

Article 7. All persons who held property in the Transvaal on the 8th dayof August, 1881, and still hold the same, will continue to enjoy therights of property which they have enjoyed since the 12th April, 1877. No person who has remained loyal to Her Majesty during the latehostilities shall suffer any molestation by reason of his loyalty; or beliable to any criminal prosecution or civil action for any part taken inconnexion with such hostilities; and all such persons will have fullliberty to reside in the country, with enjoyment of all civil rights, and protection for their persons and property. 

Article 8. The South African Republic renews the declaration made in theSand River Convention, and in the Convention of Pretoria, that noslavery or apprenticeship partaking of slavery will be tolerated by theGovernment of the said Republic. 

Article 9. There will continue to be complete freedom of religion andprotection from molestation for all denominations, provided the same benot inconsistent with morality and good order; and no disability shallattach to any person in regard to rights of property by reason of thereligious opinions which he holds. 

Article 10. The British Officer appointed to reside in the South AfricanRepublic will receive every assistance from the Government of the saidRepublic in making due provision for the proper care and preservation ofthe graves of such of Her Majesty's Forces as have died in theTransvaal; and if need be, for the appropriation of land for thepurpose. 

Article 11. All grants or titles issued at any time by the TransvaalGovernment in respect of land outside the boundary of the South AfricanRepublic, as defined in Article I, shall be considered invalid and of noeffect, except in so far as any such grant or title relates to land thatfalls within the boundary of the South African Republic; and all personsholding any such grant so considered invalid and of no effect willreceive from the Government of the South African Republic suchcompensation, either in land or in money, as the Volksraad shalldetermine. In all cases in which any Native Chiefs or other authoritiesoutside the said boundaries have received any adequate considerationfrom the Government of the South African Republic for land excluded fromthe Transvaal by the first Article of this Convention, or wherepermanent improvements have been made on the land, the High Commissionerwill recover from the native authorities fair compensation for the lossof the land thus excluded, or of the permanent improvements thereon. 

Article 12. The independence of the Swazis, within the boundary line ofSwaziland, as indicated in the first Article of this Convention, will befully recognised. 

Article 13. Except in pursuance of any treaty or engagement made asprovided in Article 4 of this Convention, no other or higher dutiesshall be imposed on the importation into the South African Republic ofany article coming from any part of Her Majesty's dominions than are ormay be imposed on the like article coming from any other place orcountry; nor will any prohibition be maintained or imposed on theimportation into the South African Republic of any article coming fromany part of Her Majesty's dominions, which shall not equally extend tothe like article coming from any other place or country. And in likemanner the same treatment shall be given to any article coming to GreatBritain from the South African Republic as to the like article comingfrom any other place or country. 

These provisions do not preclude the consideration of specialarrangements as to import duties and commercial relations between theSouth African Republic and any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions. 

Article 14. All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves tothe laws of the South African Republic (_a_) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of theSouth African Republic; (_b_), they will be entitled to hire or possesshouses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises; (_c_) they maycarry on their commerce either in person or by any agents whom they maythink fit to employ; (_d_), they will not be subject, in respect oftheir persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those which are ormay be imposed upon citizens of the said Republic. 

Article 15. All persons, other than natives, who established theirdomicile in the Transvaal between the 12th day of April, 1877, and the8th August, 1881, and who within twelve months after such last-mentioneddate have had their names registered by the British Resident, shall beexempt from all compulsory military service whatever. 

Article 16. Provision shall hereafter be made by a separate instrumentfor the mutual extradition of criminals, and also for the surrender ofdeserters from Her Majesty's Forces. 

Article 17. All debts contracted between the 12th April, 1877, and the8th August, 1881, will be payable in the same currency in which they mayhave been contracted. 

Article 18. No grants of land which may have been made, and no transfersor mortgages which may have been passed between the 12th April, 1877, and the 8th August, 1881, will be invalidated by reason merely of theirhaving been made or passed between such dates. 

All transfers to the British Secretary for Native Affairs in trust fornatives will remain in force, an officer of the South African Republictaking the place of such Secretary for Native Affairs. 

Article 19. The Government of the South African Republic will engagefaithfully to fulfil the assurances given, in accordance with the lawsof the South African Republic, to the natives at the Pretoria Pitso bythe Royal Commission in the presence of the Triumvirate and with theirentire assent (1), as to the freedom of the natives to buy or otherwiseacquire land under certain conditions; (2), as to the appointment of acommission to mark out native locations; (3), as to the access of thenatives to the courts of law; and (4) as to their being allowed to movefreely within the country, or to leave it for any legal purpose, under apass system. 

Article 20. This Convention will be ratified by a Volksraad of the SouthAfrican Republic within the period of six months after its execution, and in default of such ratification this Convention shall be null andvoid. 

Signed in duplicate in London this 27th day of February, 1884. 

 (Signed) HERCULES ROBINSON. (Signed) S. J. P. KRUGER. (Signed) S. J. DU TOIT. (Signed) M. J. SMIT. 

INDEX. 

Aberdeen Ministry, 24

Africanderdom in S. Africa, see under South Africa, Cape Colony, Natal, Orange Free State, Transvaal

Aliwal Convention, 20

Amphitheatre Occurrence, 70, 77-81

Arbitration Proposals, see under Transvaal

Barkly, Sir H. , 26

Basutos and the Orange Free State, 17, 20, 23, 94

Bloemfontein Conference, 85

Boers in S. Africa, see under South Africa, Cape Colony, Natal, Orange Free State, Transvaal

Bulwer, Sir H. E. G. , Governor of Natal, 28

Cape Colony: The Africander Spirit of Liberty, 4 England's Native Policy, 5 Slachter's Nek, 6 Emancipation of the Slaves, 7 Lord Glenelg's Policy, 8 The Dutch Language, 9 The Great Boer Trek into Natal, 1836, 10-13 Piet Reliefs Manifesto, 11 Victory of the Africander Party, 51

Capitalistic Jingoism, 37-88

Carnarvon, Fourth Earl of, 26, 29

Cathcart, Sir George, 19, 24, 25

Chamberlain, Joseph, Colonial Secretary, 46 His Attitude to the Transvaal, 57-88 Quoted, 54, 70, 73, 77

Cloete, Commissioner, 14

Colenso, Bishop, quoted, 27, 30

Cunynghame, Gen. Sir A. , 21, 26

Derby, Fifteenth Earl of, and the Transvaal Convention, 34-36, 57, 59, 101

Diamond Fields, 19, 20, 25-26, 39-40, 41, 94

Dingaan, Zulu Chief, 13

Dunn, John, and the Supply of Rifles to Zulus, 31

Dynamite Concession, 61, 62-63

Edgar Case, 70, 73-77

Faure, Rev. D. P. , 34, 60

Firearms supplied to Natives, 26, 31

Franchise Question, see under Transvaal

Frere, Sir Bartle, Governor, 26-31 Quoted, 27, 30, 31

Froude, J. A. , quoted, 8, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24

Gladstone, W. E. , and the Transvaal, 27, 29, 32

Glenelg, Lord, and His Policy in S. Africa, 9

Goldfields of the Transvaal, 37-48, 60, 61, 64

Grey, Earl, referred to, 12, 18, 24

Hogge, Commissioner, 24

Import Duties, 61, 63

Jameson Raid, 46-48, 49

Jingoism and Capital, 37-88

Kaffir Aid against Boers, 17, 31

Keate, Governor, 26, 29

Kimberley and the Diamond Fields, 19, 20, 105

Kynoch & Co. , Messrs. , 62

Liquor Law, 61, 64-65

Loch, Sir Henry, and the Transvaal, 45-46

Lombard Affair, 70-73

London Convention, 34, 56, 58, 101, 128

Malabele and the Transvaal, 23

Milner, Sir Alfred, His Attitude to the Transvaal, 52, 86-88 Quoted, 85

Missionaries in S. Africa, 6

Moffat, Dr. , 26

Molesworth, Sir Wm. , referred to, 12, 24

Moselikatse, Matabele Chief, 23

Moshesh, Basuto Chief, 17, 23, 94

Napier, Sir George, quoted, 14

Naples, Kingdom of, --British Intervention, 82

Natal: The Boer Trek into Natal, 1836, 10-13 British Military Occupation, 13 The Founding of Natal, 13-16 British Annexation, 14 Protest of Natal, 14 Sufferings of the Boers, 15

Oliphant, Mr. , Cape Attorney-General, 10

Orange Free State: Fight at Boomplaats, 17 British Annexation, 17 Collision with Moshesh, Basuto Chief, 17, 23, Andries Pretorius, Boer Leader, 15, 17-18, 23The Republic restored, 18-19 The Basutos and the Free State, 20 Diamond Fields, 19, 20, 105 The Treaty of Aliwal, 20 British Breaches of the Convention, 20-22

Our Land quoted, 49

Owen, Commissioner, 24

Panda, King of Zululand, 27

Phillips, Lionel, quoted, 44, 45

Pottinger, Governor, 15

Pretoria Convention, 33, 56, 58, 84, 128

Pretorius, Andries, His Mission to Governor Pottinger, 15, 17-18 Commandant-General of the Transvaal, 23-24 His Proposals for Peace, 24

Pretorius, Martinus, President of the Transvaal, 25

Rensburg Trek, 12

Relief, Fiet, His Manifesto, 11 Murder of Relief and His Party, 13

Rhodes, Cecil J. , and the Transvaal, 41-48, 83

Rhodesia and Its Mines, 60

Ripon, Marquis of, 54

Rosmead, Lord, 59

Sand River Convention, 24-26, 128

Schreiner, Olive, quoted, 38

Secoecoeni, Zulu Chief, 27, 30

Shepstone, Sir T. , and His Transvaal Policy, 26-31, 95

Slavery at the Cape, 7

Smith, Sir Harry, Quoted, 15 His Policy, 17-18, 24

South Africa (see also Cape Colony, Natal, Zululand, Transvaal) The Alternative of Africanderdom, 2 Africa for the Africander, 98

South African League, 66-81

South African Republic, see Transvaal

Stanley, Lord, 14

Stockenstrom, Lieut. -Gov. , 10

Suzerainty, see under Transvaal

Swazi Allies of the British, 30

Transvaal: The Matabeles and the Transvaal, 23 Fight at Vechtkop, 23 Andries Pretorius and the British Government, 23-24 The Sand River Convention, 24-26, 128 British Breaches of the Convention, 26, 29 Diamond Fields, 26, 39-40, 41 Sale of Guns to Natives, 26 British Annexation, 26-31, 95 Boer Protest, 29 The Zulus and the Transvaal, 27-31 The War of Freedom, 32 Annexation cancelled, 32 The Pretoria Convention, 33, 35, 128 The London Convention, 34, 35, 101, 128 The Suzerainty, 34-36 The "South African Republic, " 34 The Goldfields, 37-48, 60 The National Union Movement, 44 Sir Henry Loch's Indiscretion, 45-46 The Conspiracy and the Jameson Raid, 46-48, 49 National Sentiment, 49 The Cry of Disloyalty, 51 The Transvaal to be humiliated, 51 The Suzerainty Question revived, 52 _et seq. _ Appeal for Arbitration, 53-60 Uitlander Grievances, 60-61, 70-88 Reply to Mr. Chamberlain, 109 The Industrial Commission, 61 The Dynamite Concession, 61, 62-63 The Netherlands Railway Co. , 61, 63 Import Duties, 61, 63 Liquor Law, 61, 64-65 Gold Thefts, 61, 64 The South African League, 66-81 The Lombard Affair, 70-73 The Edgar Case, 70, 73-77 The Amphitheatre Occurrence, 70, 77-81 Equal Political Rights, 83 The Franchise, 84-85, 86 Bloemfontein Conference, 85 Attitude of Sir Alfred Milner, 52, 86 Bad Faith of the British Government, 87-88 Final Dispatch of State Secretary Reitz, 127 Conclusion, 89-98

Trek into Natal in 1836, 10-13

Trichardt Trek, 12, 23

Uitlanders, see under Transvaal

Umbeline, Zulu Chief, 28

Warden, Major, 18

Waterboer, (Chief), 26

Wolseley, Lord, quoted, 27

Zululand and the Zulus: Dingaan and the Boer Trek into Natal, 3 Secoecoeni, Zulu Chief, 27, 30 The Zulus and the Transvaal, 27-28 The Zulu War, 28