PART I. EARLIER HISTORY. No attempt is here made to give a complete and continuous history of the South African question. The following points are selected as most useful for the purpose of refuting Pro-Boer fallacies. 1. THE AFRIKANDER CLAIM.. Cape Colony, a Dutch possession by right of settlement, became British by purchase from the Dutch in 1814. The price paid was £6,000,000, besides concessions in the Far East. Yet the Afrikander Bond claims that "the whole of South Africa belongs by just right to the Afrikander nation," because "the transfer of the Cape Colony to the British Government took place by circumstances of force majeure, and without the consent of the Dutch nation, who renounce all claims" (when and how was this renunciation made?) "in favour of the Afrikander or Boer nation"! [Thomas, Origin of the Anglo-Boer War Revealed, pp. 64, 65.] Thus the foundation of the Afrikander claim is historically rotten. 2.-BOERS AND NATIVES. Throughout the whole history the real source of contention has been the ill-treatment of the indigenous tribes by the Boers. "At the root of the terrible condition of affairs in South Africa is the question of colour and the question of equality. The Dutch have patriarchal notions about colour. They say that God intended the coloured man to be the servant, and that the English in abolishing slavery were acting against nature and against Scripture." [Speech of the Rev. William Dower, a South African missionary of 34 years' standing, before the Congregational Union, Bristol, October 18th, 1899.] The Great Trek.-The founders of the Transvaal (including Paul Kruger, then a boy of ten) crossed the Vaal in 1836 and the following years, in order to escape the British antislavery legislation and British laws for the protection of natives. The First Annexation.-In 1877 the Transvaalers, being bankrupt, helpless, and threatened with extinction, put themselves under the protection of the British Flag to escape from the vengeance they had provoked by their maltreatment of Swazis, Basutos, and Zulus. The Restoration of Independence after Majuba (1881) was contrary to the wishes of the whole indigenous population. The Chief Sinkanhla said: "We should like to have the man pointed out from among us black people who objects to the rule of the Queen. We are the real owners of the country. We were here when the Boers came and without asking leave settled down and treated us in every way badly. The English Government then came and took the country. We have now had four years of rest and peaceful and just rule." [See also similar speeches by other native chiefs, quoted in The Truth about the Transvaal War, by John Bellows, Gloucester.] When the venerable Dr. Moffat, the best friend the South African natives ever had, heard of the retrocession, he buried his face in his hands and wept incontinently. It meant the undoing. of his life's work. His son, the Rev. John Moffat, writes, in a letter dated. December 20th, 1899: "You may take it as a broad fact that in proportion as Boer domination prevails the gravitation of the native towards slavery will be accelerated." [See also the leaflet, South African Missionaries and the War, published by the Liberal Unionist Association.] An Official Boer view of Native Rights.Shortly before the outbreak of War the State Attorney of the South African Republic, in the course of an answer to a question in the Volksraad, remarked: "With regard to the dishonouring nature of a sentence, that depends on the offence more than the sentence. Thus a man might thrash a native to death, and then be sentenced to six months' imprisonment; but that would not be dishonouring." [Cape Times and other papers, July 14th, 1899.] T Observe that the natives are maltreated, not by individual Boers merely, but by Boer laws and the Boer Government. Hence it is not to the point to cite individual cases of cruelty by British colonists. The Prinsloo Case.-In 1897 a Kaffir, being forcibly enslaved by a Boer farmer, appealed for protection to Field-Cornet Prinsloo. Prinsloo took the side of the farmer. Chief Justice Kotze declared Prinsloo's action equivalent to an attempt to re-establish slavery, and condemned him in costs. The Boer Government reimbursed Prinsloo, and Kruger declared: "Notwithstanding the judgment of the High Court, we consider Prinsloo to have been right." Subsequently Kruger obtained from the Raad an unconstitutional resolution empowering him to dismiss any Judge at his discretion. Compare the similar conduct of James II. [Details of this case in Fitzpatrick, The Transvaal from Within.] 3. THE BROKEN PROMISE. "The conventions were the result of a previous conference. At that conference definite promises were made. On May 10th, 1881, at a conference between representatives of Her Majesty and representatives of the Transvaal, the President, Sir Hercules Robinson, asked this question : 'Before annexation, had British subjects complete freedom of trade throughout the Transvaal? Were they on the same footing as citizens of the Transvaal? Mr. Kruger replied: They were on the same footing as the burghers. There was not the slightest difference, in accordance with the Sand River Convention.** Sir Hercules Robinson: 'I presume you will not object to that continuing?' Mr. Kruger No. There will be equal protection for everybody.' Sir Evelyn Wood: 'And equal privileges?' * By the Sand River Convention of 1852 the independence of the Transvaal was, for the first time, recognised by the British Government. Mr. Kruger: 'We make no difference so far as burgher rights are concerned. There may perhaps be some slight difference in the case of a young person who has just come into the country."" [ Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons, July 28th, 1899.] Sir Henry de Villiers's view of the Broken Promise. Sir J. H. de Villiers, Chief Justice of Cape Colony, an Afrikander of pure Dutch descent, in a private and friendly letter to Steyn, dated May 21st, 1899, just before the Bloemfontein Conference, wrote: "I am quite certain that if in 1881 it had been known to my fellow-commissioners that the President would adopt his retrogressive policy, neither President Brand" (of the Orange Free State) "nor I would ever have induced them to consent to sign the Convention. They would have advised the Secretary of State to recommence the war." Two months later he wrote to his friend Mr. Fischer, of the Orange Free State, a politician implicated in the intrigues between the Boers and the Cape Afrikanders (July 31st, 1899): "As one who signed the Convention in 1881, I can assure you that my fellowcommissioners would not have signed it if they had not been led to believe that President Kruger's policy towards the Uitlanders would have been very different from what it has been." 4. PERSISTENT VIOLATION OF THE Ever since 1881, the Government at Pretoria has endeavoured to shuffle off the conditions under which it accepted a limited independence. Year after year it has broken both the letter and the spirit of both Conventions. It has made or permitted repeated raids on surrounding territory, in defiance of the undertaking contained in article II. of the London Convention. ("The Government of the South African Republic will strictly adhere to the boundaries defined in the first article of this Convention, and will do its utmost to prevent any of its inhabitants from making any encroachments upon lands beyond the said boundaries.") The British Government has again and again been compelled to insist on the observance of the Convention by threats of armed intervention. The fourth article of the London Convention, which reads: "The South African Republic will conclude no treaty or engagement with any state or nation other than the Orange Free State until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen," has been frequently broken. Omitting many minor instances of perfidy, the FOUR GREAT BREACHES. each of which was the occasion of an ultimatum, deserve special notice. The following is Mr. Chamberlain's summary account of these incidents : : 66 Before this crisis arose, in the course of the last fifteen years, we have been four times on the verge of war with the Transvaal. (1) In 1884-5, when the Warren expedition was carried through. (2) In 1894, in the time of the late Government, when President Kruger attempted forcibly to enlist British subjects, and to tax them in support of his battles with the native. tribes, although at the same time he refused to them all share in the government of the country. (3) In 1895, when the Cape Government asked our assistance to prevent the arbitrary action of the Government of the Transvaal in closing the roads to the passage of Cape merchandise. (4) In 1897, when the present Government had to protest against the Alien Immigration Law, which was declared to be a distinct breach of the Convention. In none of these cases did the Government of the Transvaal yield to argument and persuasion alone. In three of them there had to be a great display of force." [Speech at Birmingham, June 26th, 1899.] Observe that in two of these four instances the ultimatum was sent, the risk of war accepted, and military expenditure incurred, by a Liberal Government. The Warren Expedition of 1884 is particularly memorable, because it was despatched by Mr. Gladstone to prevent a breach of treaty attempted within a few months of the concessions embodied in the London Convention. The following is a contemporary account : "A British protectorate over Bechuanaland was established by the revised Convention, which was duly signed by the delegates, and afterwards ratified by the Volksraad; and Mr. Mackenzie was appointed British agent. The |