CHAPTER XV.

[Contents]CHAPTER XV.CAUSES OF THE AFRICANDERS’ SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.—CONTINUED.After the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896 the peace of South Africa and the final paramountcy of Great Britain therein by the mere force of a superior civilization and of preponderating financial and diplomatic resources, depended upon a policy which was not followed.If the British authorities had eliminated Mr. Cecil Rhodes and his schemes from the situation, and had suffered matters in South Africa to return to the state which prevailed in 1887, the end would have been different, and better. At that time the country was being allowed to move in an unforced way toward a destiny of settled peace between the two races. A genuine but unaggressive loyalty in the British colonies was beginning to develop a reciprocal good will on the part of the two republics, giving promise of a pleasant fellowship of nations in South Africa.[222]The result would not have been a confederated South Africa under the British crown; that was and is impossible, both for geographical and political reasons. But there might have been brought about acquaintanceship and mutual esteem between Great Britain, the would-be Paramount Power, and the Africander race throughout the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British colonies of Natal and the Cape—which race is and will long continue to be the dominant factor in South Africa. Out of that friendly relationship might have come a paramount power to Great Britain well worth the having, and in every way consistent with the honor of the British crown and the continued independence of the Africander republics.But Mr. Rhodes and his projects were not eliminated from the situation. By force of almost unequaled genius for acquisition and intrigue, and of great powers in no least degree controlled by moral considerations, he continued to dominate—both locally and in England—the British policy in South Africa. His presence and influence made final peace in the country impossible on any condition other than the subjugation of the Africander Republics. Probably two-thirds of the European population of South[223]Africa believed that he was the chief criminal—though unpunished—in connection with the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896. His influence, therefore, had the effect of intensifying the race enmities, already the too vigorous growth of a century, and of warning every Africander in the two republics to stand armed and ready to defend the independence of his country. And these men, to whom Mr. Rhodes’ presence and activities were a constant irritation and threat, loved freedom after the fashion of their Netherland forefathers who worsted Spain in diplomacy and war in the sixteenth century, and after the fashion of their Huguenot forefathers who counted no sacrifice too great to make for liberty.During 1896 there was a temporary lull in the agitation for reforms in the Transvaal. Investigations had become an international necessity, for appearance’s sake if for no other reason; but they led to nothing except the rehabilitation of the principal leaders in the conspiracy which had miscarried. Of necessity Doctor Jameson, and his immediate associates in conducting the invasion, were condemned to death by the Transvaal authorities, for they were taken in the act, and confessed themselves guilty of a capital[224]crime. After a time the death sentences were reversed, and the offenders were set free.By the opening of 1897 a good degree of order had replaced the state of chaos into which the uprising had thrown the foreign population and interests in the Transvaal. Then the agitation for reforms was renewed, and the claims of the foreigners were backed up and pressed diplomatically by the British government, of which the exponent in the long controversy was the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies.It is not necessary to trace, step by step, the diplomatic correspondence on the subject of reforms in the Transvaal during 1897, 1898 and the first two months of 1899. The whole situation—including every subject in dispute between the two governments—will come into view in the discussions and negotiations immediately preceding the outbreak of the Africanders’ Second War of Independence, in October, 1899.GENERAL CRONJE.GENERAL CRONJE.On the 20th of March, 1899, in reply to a question by Sir E. Ashmead Bartlett as to Great Britain’s right to interfere with the affairs of the South African Republic, Mr. Chamberlain, from his place in parliament, said:[225]“There are certain cases where we can intervene, and rightly intervene, in Transvaal affairs.“1. In the first place, we may intervene if there is any breach of the convention.“2. There is no doubt we should have the usual right of interference if * * * the treatment of British subjects in the Transvaal was of such nature as would give us the right to interfere as to the treatment of British subjects in France or Germany.“3. Then there is only one other case—the third case. We can make friendly recommendations to the Transvaal for the benefit of South Africa generally and in the interests of peace.”In concluding Mr. Chamberlain said: “I do not feel at the moment that any case has arisen which would justify me in taking the strong action suggested”; the reference being to the sending of an ultimatum.The next important development was a petition to the Imperial Government, signed by 21,684 British subjects in the Transvaal, praying for interference in their behalf. This was forwarded through Mr. Conyngham Greene, the British agent at Pretoria, to Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, who transmitted it to London,[226]where it was received by Mr. Chamberlain on the 14th of April.Summarized, the complaints of the petitioners were as follows:1. The great majority of the uitlander population consists of British subjects who have no share in the government.2. Petitions of the uitlanders to the Transvaal government have either failed or have been scornfully rejected.3. Instead of redressing uitlander grievances, the Transvaal government, after the Jameson raid, passed laws making their position more irksome—i.e., the immigration of aliens act, the press law, the aliens expulsion law. The immigration act was suspended at the insistence of the British government, but the others remain in force.4. The Transvaal government exercises the power of suppressing publications devoted to the interests of British uitlanders.5. British subjects are expelled from the Transvaal without the right of appeal to the high court.6. The promise of municipal government for the city of Johannesburg has been kept in appearance only. There are 1,039 burghers resident[227]of Johannesburg, and 23,503 uitlanders, but the law giving each ward of the city two members of the council also requires that one of them must be a burgher, and the Burgomaster, who is appointed by the government, has the casting vote.7. The city of Johannesburg is menaced by forts occupied by strong Boer garrisons.8. The uitlanders of Johannesburg are denied the right to police their own city.9. Trial by jury is a farce, as uitlanders can be tried by burghers only.10. The uitlanders are deprived of political representation; are taxed beyond the requirements of the Transvaal government.11. The education of uitlander children is made subject to impossible conditions.12. The Boer police give no protection to lives and property in the city of Johannesburg.It will be noted that this petition, dealing with political and other grievances, makes no mention of the dynamite monopoly, extortionate railway charges, burdensome tariffs on imported foodstuffs, and other industrial and commercial grievances of which complaints had been made at an earlier date. And in judging of this list of complaints it should be considered that, with the[228]exception of the eleventh, concerning the education of children—which is fatally indefinite in expression—most of the conditions complained of are exactly such as would be imposed on a city lately in insurrection, and yet inhabited by the same persons who had conspired to overthrow the government.The dangerous tension already existing was greatly heightened by a long telegraphic communication from Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, to Mr. Chamberlain, on the 5th of May. After reviewing the situation, and reiterating the grievances which British subjects were said to be suffering, and declaring that the spectacle presented “does steadily undermine the influence and reputation of Great Britain,” Sir Alfred revealed the true inwardness of the struggle already begun between the Africanders and the British by saying:“A certain section of the press, not in the Transvaal only, preaches openly and constantly the doctrine of a republic embracing all South Africa, and supports it by menacing references to the armaments of the Transvaal, its alliance with the Orange Free State, and the active sympathy which in case of war it would receive from a section of her Majesty’s subjects.[229]“I can see nothing which will put a stop to this mischievous propaganda but some striking proof of the intention of her Majesty’s government not to be ousted from its position in South Africa.”Sir Alfred’s reference in the last two paragraphs is to the “Africander Bund,” a society whose ramifications were to be found throughout Natal, Cape Colony, and, indeed, wherever members of the Africander race were to be found.He that runneth may read and understand these luminous words in Sir Alfred Milner’s dispatch. The coming struggle was not to be about some foreigners in the Transvaal, but to defeat, in time, the republican aspirations of the whole Africander race, including those in the two republics already established and “a section of her Majesty’s subjects” in the British territories of Natal and Cape Colony; and the issue was understood to be either “a republic embracing all South Africa”—involving the expulsion of the British government “from its position in South Africa”—or the defeat of those aspirations in the establishing of a confederated South Africa under the British crown.In the light of Sir Alfred’s dispatch one ceases to wonder that all negotiations about the uitlander[230]grievances, and that the repeated concessions as to the franchise offered by the Transvaal, were without effect. It is evident that both parties saw inevitable war approaching on quite another and a much larger question.The response of the British government to the uitlanders’ petition, and to Sir Alfred Milner’s appeal for intervention, was a suggestion that President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner should meet at Pretoria and confer concerning the chief matters in dispute between the two governments. Afterward, upon the invitation of Mr. Steyn, president of the Orange Free State, it was decided to hold the conference at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State Republic. In accepting the invitation to this conference in a telegram dated the 17th of May, Mr. Kruger said:“I remain disposed to come to Bloemfontein and will gladly discuss every proposal in a friendly way that can conduce to a good understanding between the South African Republic and England, and to the maintenance of peace in South Africa, provided that the independence of this republic is not impugned.”The date selected for the first meeting between Mr. Kruger and Sir Alfred was the 31st of May. On the 22d Sir Alfred telegraphed Mr.[231]Chamberlain asking for final instructions to guide him in the approaching conference, and outlining his own views of the situation thus:“It is my own inclination to put in the foreground the question of the uitlanders’ grievances, treating it as broadly as possible, and insisting that it is necessary, in order to relieve the situation, that uitlanders should obtain some substantial degree of representation by legislation to be passed this session. Following would be the general line:“Franchise after six years, retroactive, and at least seven members for the Rand” (the mining district). “Present number of Volksraad of South Africa being twenty-eight, this would make one-fifth of it uitlander members.“If President Kruger will not agree to anything like this, I should try municipal government for the whole Rand as an alternative, with wide powers, including control of police.“If he rejects this, too, I do not see much use in discussing the various outstanding questions between the two governments in detail, such as dynamite, violations of Zululand boundary, ‘Critic’ case, Cape boys and Indians, though it would be desirable to allude to them in course[232]of discussion, and point out the gravity of having so many subjects of dispute unsettled.”In a telegram, dated the 24th of May, Mr. Chamberlain instructed Sir Alfred Milner, in part, as follows:“I think personally you should lay all stress on the question of franchise in first instance. Other reforms are less pressing and will come in time if this can be arranged satisfactorily and form of oath modified. Redistribution is reasonable, and you might accept a moderate concession.“If fair terms of franchise are refused by President Kruger it is hardly worth while to bring forward other matters, such as aliens, colored people, education, dynamite, etc., at the conference, and the whole situation must be reconsidered.”On the 31st of May, 1899, Sir Alfred Milner and President Kruger met in conference at Bloemfontein. Their negotiations form one of the most interesting features of the controversy between the two governments. The results of the conference, in brief, were as follows. For the uitlanders, Sir Alfred demanded that:“Every foreigner who can prove satisfactorily that he has been a resident in the country for five[233]years; that he desires to make it his permanent place of residence; that he is prepared to take the oath to obey the laws, to undertake all obligations of citizenship, and to defend the independence of the country; should be allowed to become a citizen on taking that oath.”Sir Alfred Milner modified these proposals by suggesting that the franchise be restricted to persons possessing a specific amount of property or of yearly wages, and who have good characters. He asked, further, that “in order to make that proposal of any real use for the new citizens, who mostly live in one district, * * * there should be a certain number of new constituencies created,” and that “the number of these districts should not be so small as to leave the representatives of the new population in a contemptible minority.”President Kruger did not accept Sir Alfred’s proposals, and submitted counter proposals as follows:“1. Every person who fixes his residence in the South African Republic has to get himself registered on the Field Cornet’s books within fourteen days after his arrival, according to the existing law. He will be able after complying with the conditions under ‘A’ and after the lapse[234]of two years to get himself naturalized, and will, five years after naturalization, on complying with the conditions under ‘B,’ obtain the full franchise.“A.“1. Six months’ notice of intention to apply for naturalization. 2. Two years’ continuous residence. 3. Residence in the South African Republic during that time. 4. No dishonoring sentence. 5. Proof of obedience to laws; no act against the government or independence. 6. Proof of full state citizenship and franchise or title thereto in former country. 7. Possession of unmortgaged property to the value of £150; or occupation of house to the rental of £50 per annum; or yearly income of at least £200. Nothing, however, shall prevent the government from granting naturalization to persons who have not satisfied this condition. 8. Taking of an oath similar to that of the Orange Free State.“B.“1. Continuous registration for five years after naturalization. 2. Continuous residence during that period. 3. No dishonoring sentence. 4. Proof of obedience to laws. 5. Proof that applicant still complies with the condition of A 7.”In a memorandum which is a part of the records of the conference Sir Alfred Milner admitted[235]that President Kruger’s proposals were “a considerable advance upon the existing provisions as to franchise.” But he intimated that they stopped far short of the solution he had suggested, and which, he said, “alone appeared to be adequate to the needs of the case.” He also declared it a waste of time to discuss further details; and so the conference ended in failure.Notwithstanding the failure of the conference, the Volksraad of the South African Republic passed a seven years’ retroactive franchise law on the 19th of July, 1899. This law was somewhat modified from the proposals submitted by President Kruger at the conference. It also gave the uitlanders additional representation in both raads, which President Kruger announced on the 27th of July as follows:“By virtue of the powers conferred upon them the Executive Council yesterday decided to give three new members in each Volksraad for the Witwatersrand gold fields. That is to say, there are at present two members for both raads; the number will be increased to eight, four to sit in the first and four in the second raad. With the De Kaap representative, there will now be five members to represent the mining industry in a[236]proposed enlarged legislature of thirty-one members.”In London it was believed that the action of the Volksraad was a long stride toward a peaceful solution of the difficulties. In the House of Commons Mr. Chamberlain, after reading a telegram from Sir Alfred Milner announcing the action of the Volksraad, said:“I have no official information as to the redistribution, but it has been stated that the government of the South African Republic proposes to give seven new seats to the district chiefly inhabited by aliens.“If this report is confirmed this important change in the proposals of President Kruger, coupled with previous amendments, leads the government to hope that the new law may prove a basis of a settlement on the lines laid down by Sir Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein conference.”But somewhere in the counsels by which the British authorities acted at this time there was an element of suspicion and of yet unsatisfied aggression, which did not make for a peaceful settlement. After the Volksraad of the South African Republic had passed the seven years’ franchise law, together with enlarged representation[237]of the uitlanders in both raads, and after Mr. Chamberlain had made his hopeful announcement in the House of Commons, the whole subject was reopened by a new request. The Transvaal government was asked to agree that a joint commission of inquiry, made up of expert delegates representing the Transvaal and the British government, should be appointed to investigate the exact effect of the new franchise law.It is not surprising that this request fell as a shock upon a government which had received from the power making this and other extraordinary demands a guaranty, in the convention of 1884, that it should be in every sense independent in the management of its internal affairs. On the 21st of August President Kruger formally declined to accede to the request for a joint committee to investigate the effect of the new franchise law, and submitted an alternative proposition: The South African Republic would give a five years’ retroactive franchise, eight new seats in the Volksraad and a vote for President and Commandant-General, conditioned upon Great Britain consenting:“1. In the future not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal Republic. 2. Not[238]to insist further on its assertion of the existence of suzerainty. 3. To agree to arbitration.”In a dispatch dated the 2d of September, 1899, Mr. Chamberlain, having rejected President Kruger’s alternative proposals, suggested another conference, to be held at Cape Town, and ended with the significant statement:“Her Majesty’s government also desires to remind the government of the South African Republic that there are other matters of difference between the two governments which will not be settled by the grant of political representation to the uitlanders, and which are not proper subjects for reference to arbitration.”In dispatches printed on the 7th of September President Kruger signified a willingness to attend the Cape Town conference, and, while holding that no good could come of a joint inquiry into the effect of the new franchise law, he would agree that British representatives should make an independent inquiry, after which any suggestions they might make would be submitted to the raad. Concerning suzerainty he announced the unalterable purpose of his people to adhere absolutely to the convention of 1884.On the 8th of September the British cabinet formulated a note to the South African Republic[239]very much in the nature of an ultimatum, refusing point blank to entertain the proposal that Great Britain should relinquish suzerainty over the Transvaal and pointedly intimating that the offer of a joint inquiry into the effect of the seven years’ franchise law would not remain open indefinitely.The Transvaal’s rejoinder, printed unofficially on the 16th of September, announced that the South African Republic withdrew the proposal to give a five years’ franchise, that it would adhere to the original seven years’ law already passed by the Volksraad, and that it would, if necessary, adopt any suggestions Great Britain might make with reference to the practical workings of the law.On the 25th of September, after three days’ consideration, the British cabinet gave out the text of another note to the South African Republic, which read as follows:“The object Her Majesty’s government had in view in the recent negotiations has been stated in a manner which cannot admit of misunderstanding—viz.: To obtain such substantial and immediate representation for the outlanders as will enable them to secure for themselves that fair and just treatment which was formally promised[240]them in 1881, and which Her Majesty intended to secure for them when she granted privileges of self-government to the Transvaal.“No conditions less comprehensive than those contained in the telegram of September 8 can be relied on to effect this object.“The refusal of the South African government to entertain the offer thus made—coming, as it does, after four months of protracted negotiations, themselves the climax of five years of extended agitation—makes it useless to further pursue the discussion on the lines hitherto followed, and the imperial government is now compelled to consider the situation afresh and formulate its own proposals for a final settlement of the issues which have been created in South Africa by the policy constantly followed by the government of South Africa.“They will communicate the result of their deliberations in a later dispatch.”PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.[241]

CHAPTER XV.CAUSES OF THE AFRICANDERS’ SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.—CONTINUED.

After the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896 the peace of South Africa and the final paramountcy of Great Britain therein by the mere force of a superior civilization and of preponderating financial and diplomatic resources, depended upon a policy which was not followed.If the British authorities had eliminated Mr. Cecil Rhodes and his schemes from the situation, and had suffered matters in South Africa to return to the state which prevailed in 1887, the end would have been different, and better. At that time the country was being allowed to move in an unforced way toward a destiny of settled peace between the two races. A genuine but unaggressive loyalty in the British colonies was beginning to develop a reciprocal good will on the part of the two republics, giving promise of a pleasant fellowship of nations in South Africa.[222]The result would not have been a confederated South Africa under the British crown; that was and is impossible, both for geographical and political reasons. But there might have been brought about acquaintanceship and mutual esteem between Great Britain, the would-be Paramount Power, and the Africander race throughout the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British colonies of Natal and the Cape—which race is and will long continue to be the dominant factor in South Africa. Out of that friendly relationship might have come a paramount power to Great Britain well worth the having, and in every way consistent with the honor of the British crown and the continued independence of the Africander republics.But Mr. Rhodes and his projects were not eliminated from the situation. By force of almost unequaled genius for acquisition and intrigue, and of great powers in no least degree controlled by moral considerations, he continued to dominate—both locally and in England—the British policy in South Africa. His presence and influence made final peace in the country impossible on any condition other than the subjugation of the Africander Republics. Probably two-thirds of the European population of South[223]Africa believed that he was the chief criminal—though unpunished—in connection with the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896. His influence, therefore, had the effect of intensifying the race enmities, already the too vigorous growth of a century, and of warning every Africander in the two republics to stand armed and ready to defend the independence of his country. And these men, to whom Mr. Rhodes’ presence and activities were a constant irritation and threat, loved freedom after the fashion of their Netherland forefathers who worsted Spain in diplomacy and war in the sixteenth century, and after the fashion of their Huguenot forefathers who counted no sacrifice too great to make for liberty.During 1896 there was a temporary lull in the agitation for reforms in the Transvaal. Investigations had become an international necessity, for appearance’s sake if for no other reason; but they led to nothing except the rehabilitation of the principal leaders in the conspiracy which had miscarried. Of necessity Doctor Jameson, and his immediate associates in conducting the invasion, were condemned to death by the Transvaal authorities, for they were taken in the act, and confessed themselves guilty of a capital[224]crime. After a time the death sentences were reversed, and the offenders were set free.By the opening of 1897 a good degree of order had replaced the state of chaos into which the uprising had thrown the foreign population and interests in the Transvaal. Then the agitation for reforms was renewed, and the claims of the foreigners were backed up and pressed diplomatically by the British government, of which the exponent in the long controversy was the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies.It is not necessary to trace, step by step, the diplomatic correspondence on the subject of reforms in the Transvaal during 1897, 1898 and the first two months of 1899. The whole situation—including every subject in dispute between the two governments—will come into view in the discussions and negotiations immediately preceding the outbreak of the Africanders’ Second War of Independence, in October, 1899.GENERAL CRONJE.GENERAL CRONJE.On the 20th of March, 1899, in reply to a question by Sir E. Ashmead Bartlett as to Great Britain’s right to interfere with the affairs of the South African Republic, Mr. Chamberlain, from his place in parliament, said:[225]“There are certain cases where we can intervene, and rightly intervene, in Transvaal affairs.“1. In the first place, we may intervene if there is any breach of the convention.“2. There is no doubt we should have the usual right of interference if * * * the treatment of British subjects in the Transvaal was of such nature as would give us the right to interfere as to the treatment of British subjects in France or Germany.“3. Then there is only one other case—the third case. We can make friendly recommendations to the Transvaal for the benefit of South Africa generally and in the interests of peace.”In concluding Mr. Chamberlain said: “I do not feel at the moment that any case has arisen which would justify me in taking the strong action suggested”; the reference being to the sending of an ultimatum.The next important development was a petition to the Imperial Government, signed by 21,684 British subjects in the Transvaal, praying for interference in their behalf. This was forwarded through Mr. Conyngham Greene, the British agent at Pretoria, to Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, who transmitted it to London,[226]where it was received by Mr. Chamberlain on the 14th of April.Summarized, the complaints of the petitioners were as follows:1. The great majority of the uitlander population consists of British subjects who have no share in the government.2. Petitions of the uitlanders to the Transvaal government have either failed or have been scornfully rejected.3. Instead of redressing uitlander grievances, the Transvaal government, after the Jameson raid, passed laws making their position more irksome—i.e., the immigration of aliens act, the press law, the aliens expulsion law. The immigration act was suspended at the insistence of the British government, but the others remain in force.4. The Transvaal government exercises the power of suppressing publications devoted to the interests of British uitlanders.5. British subjects are expelled from the Transvaal without the right of appeal to the high court.6. The promise of municipal government for the city of Johannesburg has been kept in appearance only. There are 1,039 burghers resident[227]of Johannesburg, and 23,503 uitlanders, but the law giving each ward of the city two members of the council also requires that one of them must be a burgher, and the Burgomaster, who is appointed by the government, has the casting vote.7. The city of Johannesburg is menaced by forts occupied by strong Boer garrisons.8. The uitlanders of Johannesburg are denied the right to police their own city.9. Trial by jury is a farce, as uitlanders can be tried by burghers only.10. The uitlanders are deprived of political representation; are taxed beyond the requirements of the Transvaal government.11. The education of uitlander children is made subject to impossible conditions.12. The Boer police give no protection to lives and property in the city of Johannesburg.It will be noted that this petition, dealing with political and other grievances, makes no mention of the dynamite monopoly, extortionate railway charges, burdensome tariffs on imported foodstuffs, and other industrial and commercial grievances of which complaints had been made at an earlier date. And in judging of this list of complaints it should be considered that, with the[228]exception of the eleventh, concerning the education of children—which is fatally indefinite in expression—most of the conditions complained of are exactly such as would be imposed on a city lately in insurrection, and yet inhabited by the same persons who had conspired to overthrow the government.The dangerous tension already existing was greatly heightened by a long telegraphic communication from Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, to Mr. Chamberlain, on the 5th of May. After reviewing the situation, and reiterating the grievances which British subjects were said to be suffering, and declaring that the spectacle presented “does steadily undermine the influence and reputation of Great Britain,” Sir Alfred revealed the true inwardness of the struggle already begun between the Africanders and the British by saying:“A certain section of the press, not in the Transvaal only, preaches openly and constantly the doctrine of a republic embracing all South Africa, and supports it by menacing references to the armaments of the Transvaal, its alliance with the Orange Free State, and the active sympathy which in case of war it would receive from a section of her Majesty’s subjects.[229]“I can see nothing which will put a stop to this mischievous propaganda but some striking proof of the intention of her Majesty’s government not to be ousted from its position in South Africa.”Sir Alfred’s reference in the last two paragraphs is to the “Africander Bund,” a society whose ramifications were to be found throughout Natal, Cape Colony, and, indeed, wherever members of the Africander race were to be found.He that runneth may read and understand these luminous words in Sir Alfred Milner’s dispatch. The coming struggle was not to be about some foreigners in the Transvaal, but to defeat, in time, the republican aspirations of the whole Africander race, including those in the two republics already established and “a section of her Majesty’s subjects” in the British territories of Natal and Cape Colony; and the issue was understood to be either “a republic embracing all South Africa”—involving the expulsion of the British government “from its position in South Africa”—or the defeat of those aspirations in the establishing of a confederated South Africa under the British crown.In the light of Sir Alfred’s dispatch one ceases to wonder that all negotiations about the uitlander[230]grievances, and that the repeated concessions as to the franchise offered by the Transvaal, were without effect. It is evident that both parties saw inevitable war approaching on quite another and a much larger question.The response of the British government to the uitlanders’ petition, and to Sir Alfred Milner’s appeal for intervention, was a suggestion that President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner should meet at Pretoria and confer concerning the chief matters in dispute between the two governments. Afterward, upon the invitation of Mr. Steyn, president of the Orange Free State, it was decided to hold the conference at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State Republic. In accepting the invitation to this conference in a telegram dated the 17th of May, Mr. Kruger said:“I remain disposed to come to Bloemfontein and will gladly discuss every proposal in a friendly way that can conduce to a good understanding between the South African Republic and England, and to the maintenance of peace in South Africa, provided that the independence of this republic is not impugned.”The date selected for the first meeting between Mr. Kruger and Sir Alfred was the 31st of May. On the 22d Sir Alfred telegraphed Mr.[231]Chamberlain asking for final instructions to guide him in the approaching conference, and outlining his own views of the situation thus:“It is my own inclination to put in the foreground the question of the uitlanders’ grievances, treating it as broadly as possible, and insisting that it is necessary, in order to relieve the situation, that uitlanders should obtain some substantial degree of representation by legislation to be passed this session. Following would be the general line:“Franchise after six years, retroactive, and at least seven members for the Rand” (the mining district). “Present number of Volksraad of South Africa being twenty-eight, this would make one-fifth of it uitlander members.“If President Kruger will not agree to anything like this, I should try municipal government for the whole Rand as an alternative, with wide powers, including control of police.“If he rejects this, too, I do not see much use in discussing the various outstanding questions between the two governments in detail, such as dynamite, violations of Zululand boundary, ‘Critic’ case, Cape boys and Indians, though it would be desirable to allude to them in course[232]of discussion, and point out the gravity of having so many subjects of dispute unsettled.”In a telegram, dated the 24th of May, Mr. Chamberlain instructed Sir Alfred Milner, in part, as follows:“I think personally you should lay all stress on the question of franchise in first instance. Other reforms are less pressing and will come in time if this can be arranged satisfactorily and form of oath modified. Redistribution is reasonable, and you might accept a moderate concession.“If fair terms of franchise are refused by President Kruger it is hardly worth while to bring forward other matters, such as aliens, colored people, education, dynamite, etc., at the conference, and the whole situation must be reconsidered.”On the 31st of May, 1899, Sir Alfred Milner and President Kruger met in conference at Bloemfontein. Their negotiations form one of the most interesting features of the controversy between the two governments. The results of the conference, in brief, were as follows. For the uitlanders, Sir Alfred demanded that:“Every foreigner who can prove satisfactorily that he has been a resident in the country for five[233]years; that he desires to make it his permanent place of residence; that he is prepared to take the oath to obey the laws, to undertake all obligations of citizenship, and to defend the independence of the country; should be allowed to become a citizen on taking that oath.”Sir Alfred Milner modified these proposals by suggesting that the franchise be restricted to persons possessing a specific amount of property or of yearly wages, and who have good characters. He asked, further, that “in order to make that proposal of any real use for the new citizens, who mostly live in one district, * * * there should be a certain number of new constituencies created,” and that “the number of these districts should not be so small as to leave the representatives of the new population in a contemptible minority.”President Kruger did not accept Sir Alfred’s proposals, and submitted counter proposals as follows:“1. Every person who fixes his residence in the South African Republic has to get himself registered on the Field Cornet’s books within fourteen days after his arrival, according to the existing law. He will be able after complying with the conditions under ‘A’ and after the lapse[234]of two years to get himself naturalized, and will, five years after naturalization, on complying with the conditions under ‘B,’ obtain the full franchise.“A.“1. Six months’ notice of intention to apply for naturalization. 2. Two years’ continuous residence. 3. Residence in the South African Republic during that time. 4. No dishonoring sentence. 5. Proof of obedience to laws; no act against the government or independence. 6. Proof of full state citizenship and franchise or title thereto in former country. 7. Possession of unmortgaged property to the value of £150; or occupation of house to the rental of £50 per annum; or yearly income of at least £200. Nothing, however, shall prevent the government from granting naturalization to persons who have not satisfied this condition. 8. Taking of an oath similar to that of the Orange Free State.“B.“1. Continuous registration for five years after naturalization. 2. Continuous residence during that period. 3. No dishonoring sentence. 4. Proof of obedience to laws. 5. Proof that applicant still complies with the condition of A 7.”In a memorandum which is a part of the records of the conference Sir Alfred Milner admitted[235]that President Kruger’s proposals were “a considerable advance upon the existing provisions as to franchise.” But he intimated that they stopped far short of the solution he had suggested, and which, he said, “alone appeared to be adequate to the needs of the case.” He also declared it a waste of time to discuss further details; and so the conference ended in failure.Notwithstanding the failure of the conference, the Volksraad of the South African Republic passed a seven years’ retroactive franchise law on the 19th of July, 1899. This law was somewhat modified from the proposals submitted by President Kruger at the conference. It also gave the uitlanders additional representation in both raads, which President Kruger announced on the 27th of July as follows:“By virtue of the powers conferred upon them the Executive Council yesterday decided to give three new members in each Volksraad for the Witwatersrand gold fields. That is to say, there are at present two members for both raads; the number will be increased to eight, four to sit in the first and four in the second raad. With the De Kaap representative, there will now be five members to represent the mining industry in a[236]proposed enlarged legislature of thirty-one members.”In London it was believed that the action of the Volksraad was a long stride toward a peaceful solution of the difficulties. In the House of Commons Mr. Chamberlain, after reading a telegram from Sir Alfred Milner announcing the action of the Volksraad, said:“I have no official information as to the redistribution, but it has been stated that the government of the South African Republic proposes to give seven new seats to the district chiefly inhabited by aliens.“If this report is confirmed this important change in the proposals of President Kruger, coupled with previous amendments, leads the government to hope that the new law may prove a basis of a settlement on the lines laid down by Sir Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein conference.”But somewhere in the counsels by which the British authorities acted at this time there was an element of suspicion and of yet unsatisfied aggression, which did not make for a peaceful settlement. After the Volksraad of the South African Republic had passed the seven years’ franchise law, together with enlarged representation[237]of the uitlanders in both raads, and after Mr. Chamberlain had made his hopeful announcement in the House of Commons, the whole subject was reopened by a new request. The Transvaal government was asked to agree that a joint commission of inquiry, made up of expert delegates representing the Transvaal and the British government, should be appointed to investigate the exact effect of the new franchise law.It is not surprising that this request fell as a shock upon a government which had received from the power making this and other extraordinary demands a guaranty, in the convention of 1884, that it should be in every sense independent in the management of its internal affairs. On the 21st of August President Kruger formally declined to accede to the request for a joint committee to investigate the effect of the new franchise law, and submitted an alternative proposition: The South African Republic would give a five years’ retroactive franchise, eight new seats in the Volksraad and a vote for President and Commandant-General, conditioned upon Great Britain consenting:“1. In the future not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal Republic. 2. Not[238]to insist further on its assertion of the existence of suzerainty. 3. To agree to arbitration.”In a dispatch dated the 2d of September, 1899, Mr. Chamberlain, having rejected President Kruger’s alternative proposals, suggested another conference, to be held at Cape Town, and ended with the significant statement:“Her Majesty’s government also desires to remind the government of the South African Republic that there are other matters of difference between the two governments which will not be settled by the grant of political representation to the uitlanders, and which are not proper subjects for reference to arbitration.”In dispatches printed on the 7th of September President Kruger signified a willingness to attend the Cape Town conference, and, while holding that no good could come of a joint inquiry into the effect of the new franchise law, he would agree that British representatives should make an independent inquiry, after which any suggestions they might make would be submitted to the raad. Concerning suzerainty he announced the unalterable purpose of his people to adhere absolutely to the convention of 1884.On the 8th of September the British cabinet formulated a note to the South African Republic[239]very much in the nature of an ultimatum, refusing point blank to entertain the proposal that Great Britain should relinquish suzerainty over the Transvaal and pointedly intimating that the offer of a joint inquiry into the effect of the seven years’ franchise law would not remain open indefinitely.The Transvaal’s rejoinder, printed unofficially on the 16th of September, announced that the South African Republic withdrew the proposal to give a five years’ franchise, that it would adhere to the original seven years’ law already passed by the Volksraad, and that it would, if necessary, adopt any suggestions Great Britain might make with reference to the practical workings of the law.On the 25th of September, after three days’ consideration, the British cabinet gave out the text of another note to the South African Republic, which read as follows:“The object Her Majesty’s government had in view in the recent negotiations has been stated in a manner which cannot admit of misunderstanding—viz.: To obtain such substantial and immediate representation for the outlanders as will enable them to secure for themselves that fair and just treatment which was formally promised[240]them in 1881, and which Her Majesty intended to secure for them when she granted privileges of self-government to the Transvaal.“No conditions less comprehensive than those contained in the telegram of September 8 can be relied on to effect this object.“The refusal of the South African government to entertain the offer thus made—coming, as it does, after four months of protracted negotiations, themselves the climax of five years of extended agitation—makes it useless to further pursue the discussion on the lines hitherto followed, and the imperial government is now compelled to consider the situation afresh and formulate its own proposals for a final settlement of the issues which have been created in South Africa by the policy constantly followed by the government of South Africa.“They will communicate the result of their deliberations in a later dispatch.”PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.[241]

If the British authorities had eliminated Mr. Cecil Rhodes and his schemes from the situation, and had suffered matters in South Africa to return to the state which prevailed in 1887, the end would have been different, and better. At that time the country was being allowed to move in an unforced way toward a destiny of settled peace between the two races. A genuine but unaggressive loyalty in the British colonies was beginning to develop a reciprocal good will on the part of the two republics, giving promise of a pleasant fellowship of nations in South Africa.[222]

The result would not have been a confederated South Africa under the British crown; that was and is impossible, both for geographical and political reasons. But there might have been brought about acquaintanceship and mutual esteem between Great Britain, the would-be Paramount Power, and the Africander race throughout the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British colonies of Natal and the Cape—which race is and will long continue to be the dominant factor in South Africa. Out of that friendly relationship might have come a paramount power to Great Britain well worth the having, and in every way consistent with the honor of the British crown and the continued independence of the Africander republics.

But Mr. Rhodes and his projects were not eliminated from the situation. By force of almost unequaled genius for acquisition and intrigue, and of great powers in no least degree controlled by moral considerations, he continued to dominate—both locally and in England—the British policy in South Africa. His presence and influence made final peace in the country impossible on any condition other than the subjugation of the Africander Republics. Probably two-thirds of the European population of South[223]Africa believed that he was the chief criminal—though unpunished—in connection with the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896. His influence, therefore, had the effect of intensifying the race enmities, already the too vigorous growth of a century, and of warning every Africander in the two republics to stand armed and ready to defend the independence of his country. And these men, to whom Mr. Rhodes’ presence and activities were a constant irritation and threat, loved freedom after the fashion of their Netherland forefathers who worsted Spain in diplomacy and war in the sixteenth century, and after the fashion of their Huguenot forefathers who counted no sacrifice too great to make for liberty.

During 1896 there was a temporary lull in the agitation for reforms in the Transvaal. Investigations had become an international necessity, for appearance’s sake if for no other reason; but they led to nothing except the rehabilitation of the principal leaders in the conspiracy which had miscarried. Of necessity Doctor Jameson, and his immediate associates in conducting the invasion, were condemned to death by the Transvaal authorities, for they were taken in the act, and confessed themselves guilty of a capital[224]crime. After a time the death sentences were reversed, and the offenders were set free.

By the opening of 1897 a good degree of order had replaced the state of chaos into which the uprising had thrown the foreign population and interests in the Transvaal. Then the agitation for reforms was renewed, and the claims of the foreigners were backed up and pressed diplomatically by the British government, of which the exponent in the long controversy was the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies.

It is not necessary to trace, step by step, the diplomatic correspondence on the subject of reforms in the Transvaal during 1897, 1898 and the first two months of 1899. The whole situation—including every subject in dispute between the two governments—will come into view in the discussions and negotiations immediately preceding the outbreak of the Africanders’ Second War of Independence, in October, 1899.

GENERAL CRONJE.GENERAL CRONJE.

GENERAL CRONJE.

On the 20th of March, 1899, in reply to a question by Sir E. Ashmead Bartlett as to Great Britain’s right to interfere with the affairs of the South African Republic, Mr. Chamberlain, from his place in parliament, said:[225]

“There are certain cases where we can intervene, and rightly intervene, in Transvaal affairs.

“1. In the first place, we may intervene if there is any breach of the convention.

“2. There is no doubt we should have the usual right of interference if * * * the treatment of British subjects in the Transvaal was of such nature as would give us the right to interfere as to the treatment of British subjects in France or Germany.

“3. Then there is only one other case—the third case. We can make friendly recommendations to the Transvaal for the benefit of South Africa generally and in the interests of peace.”

In concluding Mr. Chamberlain said: “I do not feel at the moment that any case has arisen which would justify me in taking the strong action suggested”; the reference being to the sending of an ultimatum.

The next important development was a petition to the Imperial Government, signed by 21,684 British subjects in the Transvaal, praying for interference in their behalf. This was forwarded through Mr. Conyngham Greene, the British agent at Pretoria, to Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, who transmitted it to London,[226]where it was received by Mr. Chamberlain on the 14th of April.

Summarized, the complaints of the petitioners were as follows:

1. The great majority of the uitlander population consists of British subjects who have no share in the government.

2. Petitions of the uitlanders to the Transvaal government have either failed or have been scornfully rejected.

3. Instead of redressing uitlander grievances, the Transvaal government, after the Jameson raid, passed laws making their position more irksome—i.e., the immigration of aliens act, the press law, the aliens expulsion law. The immigration act was suspended at the insistence of the British government, but the others remain in force.

4. The Transvaal government exercises the power of suppressing publications devoted to the interests of British uitlanders.

5. British subjects are expelled from the Transvaal without the right of appeal to the high court.

6. The promise of municipal government for the city of Johannesburg has been kept in appearance only. There are 1,039 burghers resident[227]of Johannesburg, and 23,503 uitlanders, but the law giving each ward of the city two members of the council also requires that one of them must be a burgher, and the Burgomaster, who is appointed by the government, has the casting vote.

7. The city of Johannesburg is menaced by forts occupied by strong Boer garrisons.

8. The uitlanders of Johannesburg are denied the right to police their own city.

9. Trial by jury is a farce, as uitlanders can be tried by burghers only.

10. The uitlanders are deprived of political representation; are taxed beyond the requirements of the Transvaal government.

11. The education of uitlander children is made subject to impossible conditions.

12. The Boer police give no protection to lives and property in the city of Johannesburg.

It will be noted that this petition, dealing with political and other grievances, makes no mention of the dynamite monopoly, extortionate railway charges, burdensome tariffs on imported foodstuffs, and other industrial and commercial grievances of which complaints had been made at an earlier date. And in judging of this list of complaints it should be considered that, with the[228]exception of the eleventh, concerning the education of children—which is fatally indefinite in expression—most of the conditions complained of are exactly such as would be imposed on a city lately in insurrection, and yet inhabited by the same persons who had conspired to overthrow the government.

The dangerous tension already existing was greatly heightened by a long telegraphic communication from Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, to Mr. Chamberlain, on the 5th of May. After reviewing the situation, and reiterating the grievances which British subjects were said to be suffering, and declaring that the spectacle presented “does steadily undermine the influence and reputation of Great Britain,” Sir Alfred revealed the true inwardness of the struggle already begun between the Africanders and the British by saying:

“A certain section of the press, not in the Transvaal only, preaches openly and constantly the doctrine of a republic embracing all South Africa, and supports it by menacing references to the armaments of the Transvaal, its alliance with the Orange Free State, and the active sympathy which in case of war it would receive from a section of her Majesty’s subjects.[229]

“I can see nothing which will put a stop to this mischievous propaganda but some striking proof of the intention of her Majesty’s government not to be ousted from its position in South Africa.”

Sir Alfred’s reference in the last two paragraphs is to the “Africander Bund,” a society whose ramifications were to be found throughout Natal, Cape Colony, and, indeed, wherever members of the Africander race were to be found.

He that runneth may read and understand these luminous words in Sir Alfred Milner’s dispatch. The coming struggle was not to be about some foreigners in the Transvaal, but to defeat, in time, the republican aspirations of the whole Africander race, including those in the two republics already established and “a section of her Majesty’s subjects” in the British territories of Natal and Cape Colony; and the issue was understood to be either “a republic embracing all South Africa”—involving the expulsion of the British government “from its position in South Africa”—or the defeat of those aspirations in the establishing of a confederated South Africa under the British crown.

In the light of Sir Alfred’s dispatch one ceases to wonder that all negotiations about the uitlander[230]grievances, and that the repeated concessions as to the franchise offered by the Transvaal, were without effect. It is evident that both parties saw inevitable war approaching on quite another and a much larger question.

The response of the British government to the uitlanders’ petition, and to Sir Alfred Milner’s appeal for intervention, was a suggestion that President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner should meet at Pretoria and confer concerning the chief matters in dispute between the two governments. Afterward, upon the invitation of Mr. Steyn, president of the Orange Free State, it was decided to hold the conference at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State Republic. In accepting the invitation to this conference in a telegram dated the 17th of May, Mr. Kruger said:

“I remain disposed to come to Bloemfontein and will gladly discuss every proposal in a friendly way that can conduce to a good understanding between the South African Republic and England, and to the maintenance of peace in South Africa, provided that the independence of this republic is not impugned.”

The date selected for the first meeting between Mr. Kruger and Sir Alfred was the 31st of May. On the 22d Sir Alfred telegraphed Mr.[231]Chamberlain asking for final instructions to guide him in the approaching conference, and outlining his own views of the situation thus:

“It is my own inclination to put in the foreground the question of the uitlanders’ grievances, treating it as broadly as possible, and insisting that it is necessary, in order to relieve the situation, that uitlanders should obtain some substantial degree of representation by legislation to be passed this session. Following would be the general line:

“Franchise after six years, retroactive, and at least seven members for the Rand” (the mining district). “Present number of Volksraad of South Africa being twenty-eight, this would make one-fifth of it uitlander members.

“If President Kruger will not agree to anything like this, I should try municipal government for the whole Rand as an alternative, with wide powers, including control of police.

“If he rejects this, too, I do not see much use in discussing the various outstanding questions between the two governments in detail, such as dynamite, violations of Zululand boundary, ‘Critic’ case, Cape boys and Indians, though it would be desirable to allude to them in course[232]of discussion, and point out the gravity of having so many subjects of dispute unsettled.”

In a telegram, dated the 24th of May, Mr. Chamberlain instructed Sir Alfred Milner, in part, as follows:

“I think personally you should lay all stress on the question of franchise in first instance. Other reforms are less pressing and will come in time if this can be arranged satisfactorily and form of oath modified. Redistribution is reasonable, and you might accept a moderate concession.

“If fair terms of franchise are refused by President Kruger it is hardly worth while to bring forward other matters, such as aliens, colored people, education, dynamite, etc., at the conference, and the whole situation must be reconsidered.”

On the 31st of May, 1899, Sir Alfred Milner and President Kruger met in conference at Bloemfontein. Their negotiations form one of the most interesting features of the controversy between the two governments. The results of the conference, in brief, were as follows. For the uitlanders, Sir Alfred demanded that:

“Every foreigner who can prove satisfactorily that he has been a resident in the country for five[233]years; that he desires to make it his permanent place of residence; that he is prepared to take the oath to obey the laws, to undertake all obligations of citizenship, and to defend the independence of the country; should be allowed to become a citizen on taking that oath.”

Sir Alfred Milner modified these proposals by suggesting that the franchise be restricted to persons possessing a specific amount of property or of yearly wages, and who have good characters. He asked, further, that “in order to make that proposal of any real use for the new citizens, who mostly live in one district, * * * there should be a certain number of new constituencies created,” and that “the number of these districts should not be so small as to leave the representatives of the new population in a contemptible minority.”

President Kruger did not accept Sir Alfred’s proposals, and submitted counter proposals as follows:

“1. Every person who fixes his residence in the South African Republic has to get himself registered on the Field Cornet’s books within fourteen days after his arrival, according to the existing law. He will be able after complying with the conditions under ‘A’ and after the lapse[234]of two years to get himself naturalized, and will, five years after naturalization, on complying with the conditions under ‘B,’ obtain the full franchise.

“A.“1. Six months’ notice of intention to apply for naturalization. 2. Two years’ continuous residence. 3. Residence in the South African Republic during that time. 4. No dishonoring sentence. 5. Proof of obedience to laws; no act against the government or independence. 6. Proof of full state citizenship and franchise or title thereto in former country. 7. Possession of unmortgaged property to the value of £150; or occupation of house to the rental of £50 per annum; or yearly income of at least £200. Nothing, however, shall prevent the government from granting naturalization to persons who have not satisfied this condition. 8. Taking of an oath similar to that of the Orange Free State.“B.“1. Continuous registration for five years after naturalization. 2. Continuous residence during that period. 3. No dishonoring sentence. 4. Proof of obedience to laws. 5. Proof that applicant still complies with the condition of A 7.”

“A.

“1. Six months’ notice of intention to apply for naturalization. 2. Two years’ continuous residence. 3. Residence in the South African Republic during that time. 4. No dishonoring sentence. 5. Proof of obedience to laws; no act against the government or independence. 6. Proof of full state citizenship and franchise or title thereto in former country. 7. Possession of unmortgaged property to the value of £150; or occupation of house to the rental of £50 per annum; or yearly income of at least £200. Nothing, however, shall prevent the government from granting naturalization to persons who have not satisfied this condition. 8. Taking of an oath similar to that of the Orange Free State.

“B.

“1. Continuous registration for five years after naturalization. 2. Continuous residence during that period. 3. No dishonoring sentence. 4. Proof of obedience to laws. 5. Proof that applicant still complies with the condition of A 7.”

In a memorandum which is a part of the records of the conference Sir Alfred Milner admitted[235]that President Kruger’s proposals were “a considerable advance upon the existing provisions as to franchise.” But he intimated that they stopped far short of the solution he had suggested, and which, he said, “alone appeared to be adequate to the needs of the case.” He also declared it a waste of time to discuss further details; and so the conference ended in failure.

Notwithstanding the failure of the conference, the Volksraad of the South African Republic passed a seven years’ retroactive franchise law on the 19th of July, 1899. This law was somewhat modified from the proposals submitted by President Kruger at the conference. It also gave the uitlanders additional representation in both raads, which President Kruger announced on the 27th of July as follows:

“By virtue of the powers conferred upon them the Executive Council yesterday decided to give three new members in each Volksraad for the Witwatersrand gold fields. That is to say, there are at present two members for both raads; the number will be increased to eight, four to sit in the first and four in the second raad. With the De Kaap representative, there will now be five members to represent the mining industry in a[236]proposed enlarged legislature of thirty-one members.”

In London it was believed that the action of the Volksraad was a long stride toward a peaceful solution of the difficulties. In the House of Commons Mr. Chamberlain, after reading a telegram from Sir Alfred Milner announcing the action of the Volksraad, said:

“I have no official information as to the redistribution, but it has been stated that the government of the South African Republic proposes to give seven new seats to the district chiefly inhabited by aliens.

“If this report is confirmed this important change in the proposals of President Kruger, coupled with previous amendments, leads the government to hope that the new law may prove a basis of a settlement on the lines laid down by Sir Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein conference.”

But somewhere in the counsels by which the British authorities acted at this time there was an element of suspicion and of yet unsatisfied aggression, which did not make for a peaceful settlement. After the Volksraad of the South African Republic had passed the seven years’ franchise law, together with enlarged representation[237]of the uitlanders in both raads, and after Mr. Chamberlain had made his hopeful announcement in the House of Commons, the whole subject was reopened by a new request. The Transvaal government was asked to agree that a joint commission of inquiry, made up of expert delegates representing the Transvaal and the British government, should be appointed to investigate the exact effect of the new franchise law.

It is not surprising that this request fell as a shock upon a government which had received from the power making this and other extraordinary demands a guaranty, in the convention of 1884, that it should be in every sense independent in the management of its internal affairs. On the 21st of August President Kruger formally declined to accede to the request for a joint committee to investigate the effect of the new franchise law, and submitted an alternative proposition: The South African Republic would give a five years’ retroactive franchise, eight new seats in the Volksraad and a vote for President and Commandant-General, conditioned upon Great Britain consenting:

“1. In the future not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal Republic. 2. Not[238]to insist further on its assertion of the existence of suzerainty. 3. To agree to arbitration.”

In a dispatch dated the 2d of September, 1899, Mr. Chamberlain, having rejected President Kruger’s alternative proposals, suggested another conference, to be held at Cape Town, and ended with the significant statement:

“Her Majesty’s government also desires to remind the government of the South African Republic that there are other matters of difference between the two governments which will not be settled by the grant of political representation to the uitlanders, and which are not proper subjects for reference to arbitration.”

In dispatches printed on the 7th of September President Kruger signified a willingness to attend the Cape Town conference, and, while holding that no good could come of a joint inquiry into the effect of the new franchise law, he would agree that British representatives should make an independent inquiry, after which any suggestions they might make would be submitted to the raad. Concerning suzerainty he announced the unalterable purpose of his people to adhere absolutely to the convention of 1884.

On the 8th of September the British cabinet formulated a note to the South African Republic[239]very much in the nature of an ultimatum, refusing point blank to entertain the proposal that Great Britain should relinquish suzerainty over the Transvaal and pointedly intimating that the offer of a joint inquiry into the effect of the seven years’ franchise law would not remain open indefinitely.

The Transvaal’s rejoinder, printed unofficially on the 16th of September, announced that the South African Republic withdrew the proposal to give a five years’ franchise, that it would adhere to the original seven years’ law already passed by the Volksraad, and that it would, if necessary, adopt any suggestions Great Britain might make with reference to the practical workings of the law.

On the 25th of September, after three days’ consideration, the British cabinet gave out the text of another note to the South African Republic, which read as follows:

“The object Her Majesty’s government had in view in the recent negotiations has been stated in a manner which cannot admit of misunderstanding—viz.: To obtain such substantial and immediate representation for the outlanders as will enable them to secure for themselves that fair and just treatment which was formally promised[240]them in 1881, and which Her Majesty intended to secure for them when she granted privileges of self-government to the Transvaal.

“No conditions less comprehensive than those contained in the telegram of September 8 can be relied on to effect this object.

“The refusal of the South African government to entertain the offer thus made—coming, as it does, after four months of protracted negotiations, themselves the climax of five years of extended agitation—makes it useless to further pursue the discussion on the lines hitherto followed, and the imperial government is now compelled to consider the situation afresh and formulate its own proposals for a final settlement of the issues which have been created in South Africa by the policy constantly followed by the government of South Africa.

“They will communicate the result of their deliberations in a later dispatch.”

PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.

PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.

[241]

Back to Index Next