General Sir EVELYN WOOD, G.C.B., V.C.General Sir EVELYN WOOD, G.C.B., V.C.Photo by Maull & Fox, London.
General Sir EVELYN WOOD, G.C.B., V.C.
Photo by Maull & Fox, London.
The enemy, however, never directly attacked the town. They contented themselves with attempting to steal cattle and skirmishing, and generally harassing those within. Such fights as these were mainly due to British initiative, and these were not fraught with success to us. Of this period it is pitiful to write. British valour and endurance were exhibited to the uttermost, and many gallant actions at different sorties might be recorded. So also might be given, did space allow, many instances of Boer cunning and Boer treachery—notably the acts of firing on the flag of truce, and on ambulance waggons. There can be no doubt that the firing on the flag of truce by the Boers was intentional. Their own explanation of the cause of this uncivilised proceeding may be taken for what it is worth. It appears that their troops were divided in opinion—that one party wished to continue fighting while another wished to surrender. Hence the exhibition of double-dealing which had so confounding an effect on their enemies, and so convenient a one for themselves. The Boers on the Majuba Hill fired on a flag of truce, the attack at Bronker's Spruit was made under cover of the white flag, and delay at Ingogo, to cover their movement from shelter, was gained by means of the same vile expedient.
When the news of the British reverses at Laing's Nek and Majuba reached Pretoria there was general consternation. But, as yet, none knew of the crushing blow that was still in store. On the 28th, 102 days after the hoisting of the Republican flag at Heidelberg, there came the almost incredible news that a peace had been concluded involving the surrender of the Transvaal to the Boers. At first it seemed impossible that the British Government could have consented to leave its loyal supporters in the terrible position in which they now found themselves. All who had sat patiently through trouble and trial, working with might and main, suffering from endless ills, in peril of their lives, and deprived of property and home, now joined in one heartrending wail of woe and disappointment. The consternation that followed the announcement of the ignoble surrender is thus described by Mr. Nixon, who was an eye-witness and sharer of the general grief and humiliation:—
"The scene which ensued baffles description. The men hoisted the colours half-mast high. The Union Jack was pulled down and dragged through the mud. The distinctive ribbons worn round the hats of the men as badges were pulled off and trampled underfoot. I saw men crying like children with shame and despair. Some went raving up and down that they were Englishmen no longer; others, with flushed and indignant faces, sat contemplating their impending ruin, 'refusing to be comforted.' It was a painful, distressing, and humiliating scene, and such as I hope never to witness again. WhileI write, the remembrance of it comes vividly before me; and as I recall to mind the weeping men and women, the infuriated volunteers, and the despairing farmers and storekeepers, half crazy with the sense of wounded national honour, and the prospect of loss and ruin before them, my blood boils within me, and I cannot trust myself to commit to paper what I think. The lapse of two years has but deepened the feeling which I then experienced. The subject may perhaps be only unpleasant to people at home, but to me personally, who have seen the ruin and dismay brought upon the too credulous loyalists, the recollections it stirs up are more bitterly mortifying than words can describe."
Mr. Rider Haggard, who at this time was at Newcastle, has also recorded his experiences on the unhappy occasion. He says:—"Every hotel and bar was crowded with refugees who were trying to relieve their feelings by cursing the name of Gladstone with a vigour, originality, and earnestness that I have never heard equalled; and declaring in ironical terms how proud they were to be citizens of England—a country that always kept its word. Then they set to work with many demonstrations of contempt to burn the effigy of the right honourable gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, an example, by the way, that was followed throughout South Africa." Talking of the loyal inhabitants in the Transvaal on whom the news burst 'like a thunderbolt,' he explains that they did not say much—because there was nothing to be said! They simply packed up their portable goods and chattels, and made haste to leave the country, "which they well knew would henceforth be utterly untenable for Englishmen and English sympathisers." Here was another great trek—a pathetic exodus of British loyalists whom Great Britain had betrayed. Away they went, these poor believing and deceived people, to try and make new homes and new fortunes, for as soon as the Queen's sovereignty was withdrawn houses and land were not worth a song, and their chances of earning a living were now entirely over, on account of their mistaken loyalty.
The condition of the town is thus described in a journal of the period:—
"The streets grown over with rank vegetation; the water-furrows unclean and unattended, emitting offensive and unhealthy stenches; the houses showing evident signs of dilapidation and decay; the side paths, in many places, dangerous to pedestrians—in fact, everything the eye can rest upon indicates the downfall which has overtaken this once prosperous city. The visitor can, if he be so minded, betake himself to the outskirts and suburbs, where he will perceive the same sad evidences of neglect, public grounds unattended, roads uncared for, mills and other public workscrumbling into ruin. These palpable signs of decay most strongly impress him. A blight seems to have come over this lately fair and prosperous town. Rapidly it is becoming a 'deserted village,' a 'city of the dead.'"
RETROCESSION
The Government, through the medium of the Queen's Speech, had announced its intention of vindicating her Majesty's authority in the Transvaal. This was in January 1881. About that time President Brand, of the Orange Free State, formed himself into a species of Board of Arbitration between the contending parties—Boers and British. The reason for this intervention was threefold—first, he genuinely desired to avoid further bloodshed; second, he as genuinely hoped, under a mask of neutrality, to advance the Dutch cause throughout South Africa; and third, he amicably wished to put himself in the good graces of the British Government. Prior to General Colley's death Mr. Brand had urged him to allow peace to be made, and to guarantee the Boers not being treated as rebels if they submitted. General Colley was no quibbler with words. He would give no such assurance. He proposed, in a telegram to the Colonial Secretary, to publish an amnesty on entering the Transvaal to all peaceable persons—excepting one or two prominent rebels. On the 8th of February (the day of the battle of the Ingogo), a telegram was received from home, promising a settlement upon the Boers ceasing from armed opposition. This showed that the Government had early begun to put their foot on the first rung of the ladder of disgrace—it can be called by no other term—and that the "climb-down" policy was already coming into practice. An unfortunate game at cross-purposes seems to have been going on, for Mr. Brand was proposing to Lord Kimberley that Sir H. de Villiers—the Chief-Justice of the Cape, should be appointed as Commissioner to go to the Transvaal to arrange matters, while at the same time Sir George Colley was telegraphing a plan to be adopted on entering the Transvaal, a plan which should grant a complete amnesty only to Boers who would sign a declaration of loyalty.
Lord Kimberley welcomed the suggestion of Mr. Brand, and agreed, if only the Boers would disperse, to appoint a Commission with power to "develop the permanent friendly scheme"; and "that, if this proposal is accepted, you now are authorised to agree to suspension of hostilities on our part." At the same time the War Office informed General Colley that the Government did not bind his discretion, but was anxious to avoid effusion of blood. LordKimberley's telegram was forwarded to Colley and to Joubert. Colley was dumfounded. He telegraphed back: "There can be no hostilities if no resistance is made; but am I to leave Laing's Nek in Natal territory in Boer occupation, and our garrisons isolated and short of provisions—or occupy former and relieve latter?"
Lord Kimberley's reply was characteristically ambiguous. The garrisons were to be left free to provision themselves, but Sir George was not to march to the relief of garrisons or occupy Laing's Nek if an arrangement were proceeding.
Meanwhile President Brand and Lord Kimberley held an unctuous telegraphic palaver, which may diplomatically be viewed as the beginning of the end. This humiliating end was hastened by the fiasco of Majuba on the 27th of February, though before it came to pass Sir Frederick Roberts was despatched with reinforcements to Natal. Sir Evelyn Wood assumed temporary command of the forces after Colley's death. Colonel Wood was asked by Lord Kimberley to obtain from Kruger a reply to a letter General Colley had forwarded before Majuba, requesting a reply in forty-eight hours. The reply, an ingenuous one, came on the 7th of March. Kruger was glad to hear that her Majesty's Government were inclined to cease hostilities, and suggested a meeting on both sides. On the 12th of March Lord Kimberley telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood, saying that if the Boers would desist from armed opposition, a Commission would be appointed to give the Transvaal complete internal self-government under British suzerainty, with a British Resident to look after the natives.
The Boers at the same time made a communication. They refused to negotiate on the basis of Lord Kimberley's telegram of the 8th, as it would be tantamount to an admission that they were in the wrong. They would accept nothing short of the restoration of the Republic with a British protectorate. This the Home Government accepted, and thus the "climb down" was complete.
On the 23rd of March 1881, Sir Evelyn Wood, under orders from the Ministry, signed a treaty on behalf of the British, while the Boer leaders did the same on behalf of their constituents. By it, the Boers engaged to accept her Majesty as Suzerain "of the Transvaal, with a British Resident in the capital, but to allow the Republic complete self-government, to operate in six months' time. The Suzerain was to have control over the foreign relations of the Transvaal, and a Royal Commission for the protection of the natives and the decision of the boundary of the Republic would be appointed. Persons guilty of acts contrary to laws of civilised warfare were to be punished; and property captured by either party was to be returned." In conclusion, it was arranged that all arms taken by theBritish Government when they annexed the country were to be handed back.
The Commission appointed by her Majesty's Government consisted of Sir Hercules Robinson, who replaced Sir Bartle Frere at the Cape; Sir Henry de Villiers, now Chief-Justice of Cape Colony; and Sir Evelyn Wood; President Brand was present in a neutral capacity. Though nominally under the control of the British Government, its actions were pro-Boer. In justice to Sir Evelyn Wood, it is necessary to state that he did no more than obey orders laid down by his Government. Indeed it is said that when he was required to make the disgraceful peace, he called his officers around him, and asked them to witness that he was merely obeying orders, so that in days to come he might not submit a tarnished name to posterity.
Sir Frederick Roberts, on his arrival at Cape Town, was therefore informed that his services were no longer needed. Sir Evelyn Wood retained a force of 12,000 men in Natal, but the Government had decided on peace at any price, and peace was therefore restored.
THE BETRAYED LOYALISTS
Of the sufferings of the loyalists we must say little. Suffice it to picture the breaking up of homes gathered together with much patience after years of steady labour; the insults daily endured from a people who now held Great Britain in contempt; the disappointment and indignation, the wretchedness and despair caused to all who had faithfully adhered to the Crown.
A petition was drafted to the House of Commons, but signatures were comparatively few. Many had no hope of redress from Great Britain, others naturally feared further Boer oppression. Some passages of the petition ran thus:—
"That your petitioners believe that the annexation was acquiesced in by a majority of the inhabitants, and was looked upon as an act calculated to create confidence and credit to the country, a belief which is borne out by the fact that almost all the old officials appointed by the former Government, or elected by the people, remained in office under the new Government; and your petitioners further believe, that if the promises expressed and implied in the annexation proclamation had been carried out fully in the spirit of the proclamation, the whole of the inhabitants would, in time, have become loyal subjects of her Majesty.
"That the annexation was followed by an immediate accession of confidence, and it marked the commencement of an era of progressand advancement, which has steadily increased up to the present time, despite the numerous drawbacks and disadvantages to which the country has been subjected, and some of which have been the result of Imperial action.
"That, notwithstanding the promises expressed and implied in the annexation proclamation, the country has been governed as a Crown Colony, and no opportunity has been afforded to the inhabitants of controlling the policy which has regulated its administration, and your petitioners are in no way responsible for the late lamentable war, or for the disgraceful peace which has concluded it.
.......
"That the value of property increased at least threefold during the English occupation, and that the increase progressed in a ratio corresponding with the reliance placed on the promises of English officials. Indeed, some of your petitioners are prepared to state, on oath if required, that they invested money immediately after or in direct consequence of a statement by a Governor of the Transvaal or a Minister of the British Crown.
"That the towns are almost exclusively inhabited by loyal subjects, and English farmers and traders are scattered all over the country.
.......
"That most of the loyal inhabitants intend to realise their property, even at a sacrifice, and to leave the country, but that those who are compelled by force of circumstances to remain in it will be deprived of the protection and security afforded by English rule, and they respectfully submit they have a right to ask that the fullest and most substantial pledges be exacted from the contemplated Boer Government for their safety, and for the exercise of their privileges as British subjects."
In reference to the unfortunate natives, and the humiliating peace, Mr. Rider Haggard, who had been Shepstone's private secretary, wrote pathetically to Sir Bartle Frere from Newcastle, Natal:—
"June 6, 1881.
"I do not believe that more than half of those engaged in the late rebellion were free agents, though, once forced into committing themselves, they fought as hard as the real malcontents.... The natives are the real heirs to the soil, and should surely have some protection and consideration, some voice in the settlement of their fate. They outnumbered the Boers by twenty-five to one, taking their numbers at a million and those of the Boers at forty thousand,a fair estimate, I believe.... As the lash and the bullet have been the lot of the wretched Transvaal Kaffir in the past, so they will be his lot in the future.... After leading those hundreds of thousands of men and women to believe that they were once and for ever the subjects of her Majesty, safe from all violence, cruelty, and oppression, we have handed them over without a word of warning to the tender mercies of one, where natives are concerned, of the cruellest white races in the world.
"Then comes the case of the loyal Boers, men who believed us and fought for us, and are now, as a reward for their loyalty, left to the vengeance of their countrymen—a vengeance that will most certainly be wreaked, let the Royal Commission try to temper it as they will.
"Lastly, there are the unfortunate English inhabitants, three thousand of whom were gathered during the siege in Pretoria alone, losing their lives in a forsaken cause. I can assure you, sir, that you must see these people to learn how complete is their ruin. They have been pouring through here, many of those who were well-to-do a few months since, hardly knowing how to find food for their families."
On this subject Colonel Lanyon, who since the first outbreak had been shut up in Pretoria, also wrote tragically:—
"March 29, 1881.
"Last night the saddest news I ever received in my life came in the shape of a letter from Wood.... After three Secretaries of State, three High Commissioners, and two Houses of Commons had said that the country should not be given back, it seems a terrible want of good faith to the loyals that this decision should have been arrived at. The scene this morning was a heart-breaking one; the women, who have behaved splendidly all through the siege, were crying and wringing their hands in their great grief; the children were hushed as if in a chamber of death; and the men were completely bowed down in their sorrow. Well they might, for the news brought home ruin to many, and great loss to all. I am ashamed to walk about, for I hear nothing but reproaches and utterances from heretofore loyal men which cut one to the very quick.... How I am to tell the natives I know not, for they have trusted so implicitly to our promises and assurances.... One man who has been most loyal to us (an Englishman) told me to-day, 'Thank God my children are Afrikanders, and need not be ashamed of their country!'"
The feelings described by Sir Owen were openly echoed by all sensible men who knew anything of the country: they were certainthat it was not within the power of Boer comprehension to understand "magnanimity" in an opponent. To the Boer, as to many an Englishman, this long-sounding word seemed more neatly to be interpreted by the more ugly but concise term "funk."
Sir Bartle Frere, writing of Sir George Colley in a letter to a friend, expressed his opinion roundly:—
"March 31, 1881.
"Let no one ever say that England lost prestige through Sir George Colley. I do not like the word so much as 'character' or 'conduct' which create it. But no country ever lost real prestige through defeat. Nelson, wounded and repulsed at Teneriffe; Grenvil, overpowered and dying on the deck of theRevenge, did as much for England's prestige as Marlborough at Blenheim or Wellington at Waterloo. Sir George Colley miscalculated his own and his enemy's strength, but he had nothing to do with disgraceful surrender, and I am sure had rather be where he now rests than sign a disgraceful peace, which is the only thing that can injure England's prestige."
Mr. R. W. Murray, of theCape Times, writing to Sir Bartle Frere, thought bitterly indeed.
"Ask your English statesmen," he wrote, "if, in the history of the world, there was ever such a cruel desertion of a dependency by the parent State. How can England hope for loyalty from South Africans? The moral of the Gladstone lesson is, that you may be anything in South Africa but loyal Englishmen."
These letters, taken haphazard from volumes of correspondence on the melancholy event of the time, serve better than the words of an outsider to show the terrible position in which the "magnanimity" of the British Ministers had placed their countrymen. One more extract and we must pass on.
COLOUR-SERGEANT and PRIVATE, THE SCOTS GUARDS.COLOUR-SERGEANT and PRIVATE, THE SCOTS GUARDS.Photo by Gregory & Co. London.
COLOUR-SERGEANT and PRIVATE, THE SCOTS GUARDS.
Photo by Gregory & Co. London.
Colonel Lanyon, writing again to Sir Bartle Frere, said:—
"April 26, 1881.
"The Boers are practically dictators, and have been ruling the country in a manner which is simply humiliating to Englishmen. Active persecution is going on everywhere, and consequently all that can are leaving the country. Thirty families have left Pretoria alone;B——andM——have left, having been frequently threatened because of their having been members of the Executive, and those two poor fellowsJ——andH——are completely ostracised for thesame reason. They are both ruined men, practically speaking, and all because they trusted to England's assurances and good faith....
"But hard as these cases are, I feel that the natives have had the cruellest measure meted out to them, and they feel it acutely. The most touching and heart-breaking appeals have come from some of the chiefs who live near enough to have heard the news. They ask why they have been thrown over after showing their loyalty by paying their taxes and resisting the demands made upon them by the Boers during hostilities. They point out that we stopped them from helping us, and that, had we not done so, the Boers would have been easily put down. They say that, as we so hindered their action, it is a cruel wrong for us now to hand them back to the care of a race which is more embittered against them than ever, and who have already begun to harass them because of their loyalty. These points are unanswerable, and I do not see how we can reply to them."
THE CONVENTIONS
As may be remembered, Sir Evelyn Wood was ordered to conclude an armistice, whereby the troops that had garrisoned the Transvaal might evacuate it. In the case of Potchefstrom, the execution of this design was treacherously prevented by Commandant Cronjé. This officer, after the armistice had been arranged, withheld the news from the garrison, and prevented supplies from reaching the fort. As a natural consequence, he became a national hero, and led the burghers against Dr. Jameson in 1895 and the forces on the Western frontier in 1899.
The armistice was concluded in March 1881, and in August the Convention of Pretoria was signed. Some form of inquiry was held into the conduct of persons who had been guilty of acts contrary to the rules of civilised warfare, but the whole thing proved to be a mere farce; and, as a matter of fact, not one of the perpetrators of murder and other crimes during the course of the war was brought to justice. The Commission insisted on a definite agreement for the purpose of securing British persons from oppressive legislation, but, as we know, Boer promises were as completely pie-crust as Boer contracts were mere waste paper.
At the beginning of June Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter in answer to that received from the loyal inhabitants. In this he said:—
"Her Majesty's Government willingly and thankfully acknowledge the loyal co-operation which her Majesty's forces received at Pretoria and elsewhere by the inhabitants, and we sympathise with the privations and sufferings which they endured. I must, however, observe that so great was the preponderance of the Boers who rose in arms against the Queen's authority that the whole country, except the posts occupied by the British troops, fell at once practically into their hands. Again, the memorialists themselves only estimate the proportion of settlers not Transvaal Boers at one-seventh. Nearly, though not quite, the whole of the Boers have appeared to be united in sentiment, and her Majesty's Government could not deem it their duty to set aside the will of so large a majority by the only possible means, namely, the permanent maintenance of a powerful militaryforce in the country. Such a course would have been inconsistent alike with the spirit of the Treaty of 1852, with the grounds on which the annexation was sanctioned, and with the general interests of South Africa, which especially require that harmony should prevail between the white races.
"On the other hand, in the settlement which is now in progress, every care will be taken to secure to the settlers, of whatever origin, the full enjoyment of their property, and of all civil rights."
The pledges conveyed in the last sentence received such fulfilment as they were to have by the insertion in the Convention of the following clauses:—
"Article XII.—All persons holding property in the said State, on the 8th day of August 1881, will continue to enjoy the rights of property which they have enjoyed since the annexation. No person who has remained loyal to her Majesty during the recent hostilities shall suffer any molestation by reason of his loyalty, or be liable to any criminal prosecution or civil action for any part taken in connection with such hostilities, and all such persons will have full liberty to reside in the country, with enjoyment of all civil rights, and protection for their persons and property.
"Article XXVI.—All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the Transvaal State (a) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the Transvaal State; (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 and 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 Transvaal citizens."
The Convention itself is now well known, but brief allusion to it may not be out of place. The preamble is important, and runs as follows:—
"Her Majesty's Commissioners for the settlement of the Transvaal territory, duly appointed as such by a Commission passed under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet, bearing date the 5th April 1881, do hereby undertake and guarantee, on behalf of her Majesty, that from and after the 8th day of August 1881 complete self-government, subject to the suzerainty of her Majesty, her heirs and successors, will be accorded to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, upon the following terms and conditions, and subject to the following reservations and limitations...."
The new State was to be styled "The Transvaal State." A British Resident was appointed, and the right to move British troopsthrough the State guaranteed. External relations were to be under British control, and intercourse with foreign Powers to be carried on through her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers. The independence of Swaziland was guaranteed. Article 4 of the Sand River Convention, forbidding slavery, was re-affirmed in Article 16. Natives were to be allowed to acquire land, and to move about the country "as freely as may be consistent with the requirements of public order." Complete freedom of religion was established. Protection to loyalists was guaranteed by the Triumvirate. The British Resident was given wide authority in native affairs; was, in fact, constituted as an official protector of natives. The boundaries of the State were defined, and it engaged not to transgress them.
The government of the country was handed over to the Triumvirate, who engaged to summon a Volksraad as soon as possible. The Volksraad when it assembled, however, was disinclined to ratify the Pretoria Convention. The burghers wanted the Old Republic of the Sand River Convention, and fretted at the idea that they should have agreed to acknowledge British suzerainty. This acknowledgment was made a condition of the grant of autonomy, and the British Resident in Pretoria was to have large powers in the direction of native affairs. The position of the post of British Resident was to be similar to that held by a British Resident in one of the Native States of India. "Africanus," in his useful book on "The Transvaal Boers," thus describes the practical difference between the status of the two officials: "A Resident in an Indian State, though sometimes exposed to the risk of assassination, or of a general mutiny, is known by the inhabitants to have behind him the enormous military force of the Indian Empire, whereas the unhappy Resident at Pretoria was given no means of enforcing any protests which he might be called upon to make. His only course was to report disobedience to the High Commissioner; and if the disobedience was not of such a character as to force the Imperial Government to undertake military measures, it was sure to be overlooked. Thus the Resident, so far from controlling the policy of the Transvaal, was reduced to the position of counsel holding 'a watching brief.'"
As will be seen, the interests of the Uitlanders were protected, but no provision was made by the Convention for future immigrants. Mr. Kruger, whose assurances at the time were believed to be sound, had promised to place them on equal footing with the burghers as regards freedom of trade. His words were: "We make no difference as far as burgher rights are concerned. There may, perhaps, be some slight difference in the case of a young person who has come into the country," but the term "youngperson," it was afterwards explained, had no reference to age, but to time of residence in the country.
Mr. Kruger, as leader of the reactionary section of the Boers, finally became the President. The rival of Mr. Kruger was Mr. Joubert, otherwise known as "Slim Piet," on account of his wily ways, and between them from that day up to the present time considerable jealousy existed. They were always of one accord, however, in struggling to slip or squeeze out of any Conventions with the British. The first contravention of treaty engagements was the return of the State to the old title of South African Republic. The Home Government feebly remonstrated—it was too sunk in the slough of "magnanimity" to do more. As a natural result the Boers snapped their fingers at such remonstrances. After taking an inch they helped themselves to an ell! They had engaged to respect boundaries, but soon they began to lap over into Zululand and Bechuanaland.
The Boer process of expansion is simple and time-honoured. A case of spirits is exchanged for the right to graze on land belonging to an independent chief. The cattle graze, the master locates himself. If the intrusion is resented, a campaign follows, and the stronger ousts the weaker. Sometimes the Boer lends his services in warfare to a petty chief, and those services are rewarded with a grant of land.
When the British annexed the Transvaal and conquered Sekukuni, the other chiefs submitted to the British Government. On the resumption of Boer rule, however, the chiefs were inclined to defy their authority. The territories of the Mapoch, Malaboch, and Mpefu were assigned to the Boers by the Convention of 1881, and consequently quarrels began. In 1883 Mapoch broke out against authority, and there was a campaign to subdue him. Malaboch became obstreperous in 1894, and Mpefu followed his example in 1898. Most of the campaigns arose over the refusal to pay the hut tax. Before the Mapoch campaign in 1883 the Volksraad made a change in the terms of the franchise. It may be remembered that for burgher rights a residence of one year in the country and an oath of allegiance were necessary conditions. It was arranged that in future all candidates for citizenship must have resided and been registered in the Field Cornet's lists for five years, and must pay the sum of £25.
About this time Messrs. Kruger, Du Toit, and Smith travelled to England to agitate for a new Convention. The Transvaal Government had "broken the spirit, and even the letter," of the old Convention, and Lord Derby in the House of Lords expressed his opinion that "it would be an easy thing to find acasus belliin whathad taken place." In spite of all this, Mr. Gladstone in 1884 obligingly agreed to a new Convention. By examination of its terms, it will be seen how far and how ignobly the Government went on the road to concession. By this Convention the British Resident was replaced by a diplomatic agent; the old title of South African Republic was restored; the Republic was allowed to negotiate on its own account with foreign Powers, limitations on treaty-making alone being imposed. Complete freedom of religion was promised, and the Republic agreed to "do its utmost" to prevent any of its inhabitants from making any encroachments upon lands beyond the boundaries laid down. Article 14 will be seen to be verbally similar to Article 26 of the Pretoria Convention of 1881, only the wordsSouth African Republicbeing substituted forTransvaal State. Nothing was said about the preamble to the Pretoria Convention or the question of British "suzerainty." The word was omitted from the new text; but it was supposed to be operative as before. Over this matter there has been so much argument that, unless we can devote a volume to solving the Convention riddle, it is best left alone. We must allow that the ambiguity of an already ambiguous Ministry had here reached its climax! Certain it is that the Transvaal representatives returned to inform the Raad that the suzerainty had been abolished, and that statement they were allowed to maintain without contradiction! As a natural consequence of this indecision and weakness on the part of the then Government, subsequent Governments have been placed in an unenviable quandary. The Boers contend that the omission of the word "suzerainty" in 1884 was intentional, and designed to permit the State to style itself an independent Republic, while all level-headed persons are fully aware that no Republic could have been granted complete independence while under a weight of debt for money and blood spent for years and years to save it from collapse and annihilation. Moreover, the guarantee of independence of the Transvaal was so unmistakably a result of suzerainty that the repetition of the word was unnecessary.
MR. KRUGER
Of the man who now began to play so prominent a part on the political stage, the world at that time knew but little. Even now opinions regarding him are many and varied, and it may be interesting to read, in close juxtaposition, sketches of his character and ways which have from time to time been drawn by those who have come in contact with him.
Perhaps no more impartial sketch can be presented than that of Mr. Distant, a naturalist, who visited the Transvaal about eight years ago. He said:—"President Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger was born on the 10th October 1825, in the district of Colesburg in the Cape Colony, and is without doubt the greatest and most representative man that the Boers have yet produced. Uneducated, or self-educated, he possesses a very large amount of that natural wisdom so often denied to men of great learning and of literary cultivation. With many prejudices, he is fearless, stubborn, and resolute, and he really understands Englishmen little better than they understand him. In his earlier days he has been a somewhat ardent sportsman and a good shot. He has been engaged and honourably mentioned in most of the Kaffir fights of his time.... Socially, he has always lived in a somewhat humble position, and it is to the credit of his nature as a man that he bears not the slightest trace of theparvenu. Plain and undistinguished in appearance, he combines the advantages of a prodigious memory with a remarkable aptitude for reading his fellow-man, and this last quality would be more valuable were it not leavened by a weakness in resisting flattery and adulation. He is very pious and self-reliant, which is provocative of bigotry and hot temper; and surrounded and approached on all sides by clever and often unscrupulous financiers and speculators, his scutcheon has worn wonderfully well, and his character and reputation passed through many fiery ordeals. He is also a rough diplomatist of no mean rank."
The picture is distinctly interesting, but it does Mr. Kruger an injustice. Mr. Distant says that "he understands Englishmen little better than they understand him." Surely this remark is an insult to Mr. Kruger's great sagacity. He long ago "took the measure" of the Englishman, and he has enjoyed himself immensely in seeing how far it was possible—vulgarly speaking—to "try it on" with the British nation. If Mr. Kruger could be induced to write a book entitled "My Life and Games with the British Government for the last Twenty Years," he might afford our politicians some useful and instructive entertainment.
To Mr. Distant's portrait of the President of the South African Republic another and a later one may be appended. It is drawn by the able pen of Mr. Fitzpatrick, the author of "The Transvaal from Within." "In the history of South Africa the figure of the grim old President will loom large and striking—picturesque, as the figure of one who, by his character and will, made and held his people; magnificent, as one who, in the face of the blackest fortune, never wavered from his aim or faltered in his effort; who, with a courage that seemed and still seems fatuous, but which may well becalled heroic, stood up against the might of the greatest empire in the world. And, it may be, pathetic too, as one whose limitations were great, one whose training and associations, whose very successes, had narrowed and embittered and hardened him; as one who, when the greatness of success was his to take and hold, turned his back on the supreme opportunity and used his strength and qualities to fight against the spirit of progress and all that the enlightenment of the age pronounces to be fitting and necessary to good government and a healthy State.
"To an English nobleman who, in the course of an interview, remarked, 'My father was a Minister of England and twice Viceroy of Ireland,' the old Dutchman answered, 'And my father was a shepherd!' It was not pride rebuking pride; it was the ever-present fact which would not have been worth mentioning but for the suggestion of the antithesis. He, too, was a shepherd, and is—a peasant. It may be that he knows what would be right and good for his people, and it may be not; but it is sure that he realises that to educate would be to emancipate; to broaden their views would be to break down the defences of their prejudices; to let in the new leaven would be to spoil the old bread; to give unto all men the rights of men would be to swamp for ever the party which is to him greater than the State. When one thinks of the one-century history of this people, much is seen that accounts for their extraordinary love of isolation, and their ingrained and passionate aversion to control; much, too, that draws to them a world of sympathy. And when one realises the old Dopper President hemmed in once more by the hurrying tide of civilisation, from which his people have fled for generations—trying to fight both Fate and Nature, standing up to stem a tide as resistless as the eternal sea—one sees the pathos of the picture. But this is as another generation may see it. To-day we are too close, so close that the meaner details, the blots and flaws, are all most plainly visible: the corruption, the insincerity, the injustice, the barbarity—all the unlovely touches that will by-and-by be forgotten, sponged away by the gentle hand of Time, when only the picturesque will remain."
PAUL KRUGER, President of the Transvaal Republic.PAUL KRUGER,President of the Transvaal Republic.Photo by Elliott & Fry, London.
PAUL KRUGER,
President of the Transvaal Republic.
Photo by Elliott & Fry, London.
Mr. Fitzpatrick speaks somewhat more plainly in another place:—
"Outside the Transvaal Mr. Kruger has the reputation of being free from taint of corruption from which so many of his colleagues suffer. Yet within the Republic and among his own people one of the gravest of the charges levelled against him is, that by his example and connivance he has made himself responsible for much of the plundering that goes on. There are numbers of cases in which the President's nearest relations have been proved to be concerned in the most flagrant jobs, only to be screened by his influence; suchcases, for instance, as that of the Vaal River Water Supply Concession, in which Mr. Kruger's son-in-law 'hawked' about for the highest bid the vote of the Executive Council on a matter which had not yet come before it, and, moreover, sold and duly delivered the aforesaid vote. There is the famous libel case in which Mr. Eugene Marais, the editor of the Dutch paperLand en Volk, successfully sustained his allegation that the President had defrauded the State by charging heavy travelling expenses for a certain trip on which he was actually the guest of the Cape Colonial Government."
The light thus thrown on the dealings of Mr. Kruger is not a solitary gleam. It may be remembered that during the period of British rule in the Transvaal he had an appointment under Government. The terms of his letter of dismissal can be found on page 135 of Blue-Book, c. 144, and involving as they do a serious charge of misrepresentation in money matters, are useful when viewed in line with the above quotation.
Mrs. Lionel Phillips imagines that every one must by this time have gauged the nature of the President, as she herself has done. She says:—
"Paul Kruger is so well known from the many portraits and caricatures that have appeared in recent years, as well as descriptions of him, that one from me seems superfluous. His clumsy features, and small cunning eyes, set high in his face, with great puffy rings beneath them, his lank straight locks, worn longer than is usual, the fringe of beard framing his face, even his greasy frock-coat and antiquated tall hat have been pourtrayed times without number. He is a man of quite 75 years of age now, and his big massive frame is bent, but in his youth he possessed enormous strength, and many extraordinary feats are told of him. Once seen he is not easily forgotten. He has a certain natural dignity of bearing, and I think his character is clearly to be read in his face—strength of will and cunning, with the dulness of expression one sees in peasants' faces. 'Manners none, and customs beastly,' might have been a life-like description of Kruger. The habit of constantly expectorating, which so many Boers have, he has never lost. He is quite ignorant of conversation in the ordinary acceptation of the word; he is an autocrat in all his ways, and has a habit of almost throwing short, jerky sentences at you generally allegorical in form, or partaking largely of scriptural quotations—or misquotations quite as often. Like most of the Boers, the Bible is his only literature—that book he certainly studies a good deal, and his religion is a very large part of his being, but somehow he misses the true spirit of Christianity, in that he leaves out the rudimentary qualities of charity and truth."
GERMANS AND UITLANDERS
It appears that a German traveller, Herr Ernest Von Weber, as long ago as 1875, had cast a loving eye on the Transvaal. He wrote:—"What would not such a country, full of such inexhaustible natural treasures, become, if in course of time it was filled with German immigrants? A constant mass of German immigrants would gradually bring about a decided numerical preponderance of Germans over the Dutch population, and of itself would by degrees affect the Germanisation of the country in a peaceful manner. Besides all its own natural and subterraneous treasures, the Transvaal offers to the European power which possesses it an easy access to the immensely rich tracts of country which lie between the Limpopo, the Central African lakes and the Congo (the territory saved for England by Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company). It was this free unlimited room for annexation in the North, this open access to the heart of Africa, which principally impressed me with the idea, not more than four years ago, that Germany should try, by the acquisition of Delagoa Bay, and the subsequent continual influx of German immigrants to the Transvaal, to secure the future dominion over this country, and so pave the way for a German African Empire of the future. There is, at the same time, the most assured prospect that the European power, who would bring these territories under its rule, would found one of the largest and most valuable empires of the globe; and it is, therefore, on this account truly to be regretted that Germany should have quietly, and without protest, allowed the annexation of the Transvaal Republic to England, because the splendid country, taken possession of and cultivated by a German race, ought to be entirely won for Germany; and would, moreover, have been easily acquired, and thereby the beginning made and foundation laid of a mighty and ultimately rich Germany in the southern hemisphere. Germany ought at any price to get possession of some points on the East as well as the West Coast of Africa." Part of Mr. Von Weber's ambition was subsequently realised.
In 1884 the introduction of Germany upon the political scene was successfully accomplished. The hoisting of the German flag at Angra Peguena was due to the unscrupulous and clever machinations of Prince Bismarck. The new German Colony comprised Damaraland and Great Namaqualand, and between it and the Boer Republic lay the Kalari Desert and Bechuanaland.
Now, the Bechuana chiefs were old enemies of the Boers. Agood deal of border fighting took place, and at last the Boers established their authority over a district which they christened "The New Republic," and which was annexed to the Transvaal in 1888. They endeavoured to capture in the same way Stellaland and Vryburg, but on this subject the British Government had something to say, and for once they said it definitely. Sir Charles Warren with a military force took these districts under British protection. This expedition was resented by the Cape Dutch and their English friends, Messrs. Spriggs and Upington, who hastened to Bechuanaland to effect a settlement before the arrival of Sir Charles Warren's force. Owing to the firmness and decision of Sir Charles Warren and his supporters, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Mackenzie, their anti-Imperialistic efforts fortunately failed!
It must be remembered that in Cape Colony the Dutch sympathies had, for the most part, been given to the Boers. Racial ties in Africa are strong, and at the time of the war many people, not thoroughly disloyal, felt that there had been aggression on the freedom of the Republicans, and were inclined to admire the efforts of the Boers to repel that aggression. There were others, too, who believed that, owing to fear of rebellion on the part of the Cape subjects, Great Britain had been forced into chicken-hearted surrender, and this belief naturally encouraged the Cape Dutch to assume that, on emergency, the policy of the Empire might be directed by threats of rebellion.
Much of the bad feeling was due merely to political agitation. The association known as the Africander Bond was started as a species of political nursery wherein to expand the ideas of the budding Boer, and "coach" him in his duties as a free-born subject. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," as we all are aware, and it seems to have been the object of this organisation to implant just sufficient knowledge in the mind of the ignorant farmer to foster his hostility to Great Britain, without encouraging him to progress sufficiently to gauge the advantages to himself of peace and goodwill with a sovereign power. Before the existence of this organisation he was contented to choose as his Parliamentary representative some sound and respectable citizen, a British subject, or some colonist who, well versed in the British tongue, could understand the laws at first hand. But machinating politicians conceived the notion that the dissatisfied Boer might be made to dance marionette-wise while they pulled the strings, and they promptly went to work to pretend he could think for himself, and proceeded to inflate his mind with so vast an idea of his own political importance that he even began to conjure up dreams of an entirely Dutch South Africa on an Africanderbasis, with the Vierkleur in place of the Union Jack floating bravely over his head!
For his benefit the Capepatoiswas promoted to the rank of a language. Parliament expressed itself both in English and so-called Dutch, while Blue-Books and official papers were printed in bi-lingual fashion, for the convenience of farmer members, who, for the most part, could neither read, write, nor speak the language of the Netherlands!
The battle-cry of the Bond was "Africa for the Africander" and the "Elimination of the Imperial factor." The Colonists naturally grew to imagine that, as Great Britain was powerless to govern, government on their own behalf would be advantageous. In justice it must be said that the Eastern Province and Natal adhered to the Crown, though the Western Province was led by the nose by the Bond.
From this time Mr. Hofmeyr—a man of great ability, and generally devoted to the Africander cause—became an important factor in the political caucus. Mr. Rhodes also was conspicuous. At that date he was inclined to lean toward Africander principles, but, like all great men on seeing the error of their judgments, he readjusted his theories—with the results we all know.
The expedition of Sir Charles Warren was entirely successful. As has been said, a Protectorate was established over Bechuanaland.
The country south of the Moloppo River, whose chief towns are Mafeking and Vryburg, became a Crown Colony. It was afterwards transferred to the Cape. The territories of Khama, Sebele, and Bathoen still form an Imperial Protectorate.
When gold was first discovered, the fable of "the dog in the manger" began to be enacted in the Transvaal. The Boers were quite incompetent to start mining operations on their own account, and yet were intolerant of the presence of outsiders who were willing to expend their energies in the business. Gradually, however, they agreed to admit foreigners on terms which on the surface were fairly liberal, and became indirectly almost extortionate.
These foreigners—British, Americans, Germans, and Poles—were the antithesis of all that Boer traditions held dear. To begin with, they were progressive; they were also energetic and commercial, and their motto, instead of being "God will provide," was the practical one of "Carpe diem." The dawn of the "golden age" has been described, and there is no reason, therefore, to dwell on the attractions which converted the Transvaal, for many, from a fortune-hunter's goal to a permanent home. Unfortunately these Uitlanders were not bound up in Transvaal politics. The ways of the stolid and the ignorant, the narrow and the bigoted, were nottheir ways; they had no sympathy for "masterly inaction," and this the Boers knew.
In 1887, to protect themselves from the outsider, the Republicans arranged that invaders could not be admitted to burgher rights under fifteen years. The Uitlanders agitated for increased privileges, and in 1890 a "Second Raad" was created. For this Chamber it was necessary to take the oath of allegiance, to reside two years in the State before being entitled to vote, and another two before becoming eligible for election.
Upon the scene now came Dr. Leyds, a Hollander of certain ability, a cosmopolitan schemer, and as such naturally opposed to the prestige of Great Britain. He had his ideal of a great Africander Confederation! On the other hand, there was Mr. Rhodes, who had also his ideal—that of a Confederated South Africa stretching to the Zambesi. Fortunately, with Mr. Rhodes went the Cape Dutch. And here we may break off to consider the Colossus, as he has been called. His enemies were many. By some it was asserted that Mr. Rhodes was at heart no Imperialist; by others he was declared to be merely an unscrupulous adventurer. But, as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so must any criticism of this marvellous man be confined to results.
MR. RHODES
Of the chief personage in the political and financial history of South Africa it is desirable we should know something definite, though space does not allow of any long appreciation of all he has accomplished for the advancement of the empire. The Right Hon. Cecil John Rhodes was born in 1853. He was the fourth son of the late Rev. Francis W. Rhodes, Rector of Bishop Stortford. In 1871 he went to South Africa, there to join his brother Herbert, who was engaged in cotton-growing in Natal. His constitution was delicate, and it was believed that a journey to the Cape would be beneficial to him. In 1872 he returned in much better health to England, and entered Oriel College, Oxford. While there he contracted a chill, and found himself again under orders to return to South Africa. At that time Herbert Rhodes had forsaken cotton-growing, and had become fascinated by the prospect of wealth offered by the diamond fields in the locality now known as Kimberley. The two youths joined hands, and in 1873 we find the elder brother leaving his claim in charge of the younger, the hard-working, astute, and masterful Cecil, whose name has become almost a household word. The young man, who took his degree at Oxford in the interval of his work, brought to every task he attempted an educated mind and a certain dogged obstinacy, which caused him to surmount all difficulties. He prospered amazingly. But money, instead of numbing his activities, only sharpened them, and he soon began to formulate his ideal—the Utopian dream of an entirely British Africa from the Cape to the Zambesi!