Boer Politics Part 3

No minister of the Reformed Dutch Church had accompanied the Boers in their Trek. They therefore formed themselves into a separate reformed Church, whose members called themselves "doppers" (round-heads). They allow no liberty of thought; they believe in literal inspiration. If they had ever heard of Galileo, they would have looked upon him as an impostor. They place the authority of the Old Testament above that of the New. There are three contending sects in the Transvaal, whose hostility is such that both before and after 1881 threats of Civil War were indulged in.

3.--_The Boers saved by the English._

In 1871, the question of fixing the frontier between the Transvaal and the Barolongs, a Bechuana tribe, was submitted to arbitration. The decision was given by Mr. Keate, Governor of Natal. President Pretorius having accepted it, the Boers deposed him, and continued to occupy the territory to which they laid claim. They were at a loss whom next to elect as President.

Overtures were made to Mr. Brand, President of the Orange Free State; but he wisely refused. They next turned to a Cape Afrikander, a former minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, Mr. F. Burgers, a capable, intelligent man. It was his desire to correct abuses; to repress the slavery that was being carried on under the name of "apprenticeship"; to introduce railways and schools; he claimed the right to impose taxation, he got to be credited, in the long run, with the belief that the devil's tail was not as long as it is represented in the old Bible pictures. When the Boers were defeated by Sekukuni, they looked upon it as a punishment from G.o.d for having a "free thinker" for President. The commandos disbanded themselves. At the same time Cetewayo, the Zulu Chief, was threatening the Boers in the south. Caught between two fires, without resources or organisation, annihilation was before them. Now the English, for their own security, had the greatest interest in preventing the extermination of white men by natives; and on that ground, apart from all sentimentality, they had never ceased to protest against the methods employed by the Boers, as the surest means of bringing about that result. Theophilus Shepstone, who possessed great influence over the Zulus, was sent to Pretoria. Unable, even with the help of their President, to bring any order into the Government of the Transvaal, he ended by annexing it on 12th April, 1877. He annexed it in order to save it. Had the English abandoned it to itself, the Boer territory would have been occupied by Basutos and the Zulus, and the Boers would have disappeared from the face of the earth.

4.--_The Annexation of the Transvaal and the Conventions of 1881 and 1884._

M. Kuyper is very unjust when he reproaches the English with the ma.s.sacre of the Zulus; for it was all to the profit of the Boers, who, it may be added, rendered no a.s.sistance. Once delivered from their native enemies by the English, the Boers appointed, December 16th, 1880, a triumvirate, composed of Pretorius, Kruger and Joubert. They demanded the re-instatement of the South African Republic, under British protection; they commenced attacking small detachments of English troops, and on February 27th they surrounded a force on Majuba Hill, killing 92 officers and men, General Colley among them, wounding 134, and taking 59 prisoners. That is what is called "the disaster of Majuba Hill." An army of 12,000 men was on the way out; Mr. Gladstone, in his Midlothian Campaign, had protested against the annexation; and, although, after he became Prime Minister, he supported it in the speech from the Throne, the hopes he had given to the separatists proved well founded, for after this defeat he became a party to the Convention of 1881, by which the independence of the Transvaal, under the suzerainty of England, was recognized.

5.--_The Convention of 1881 inapplicable._

It must be confessed, that the Liberal Government committed a grave error. It seemed afraid of a rebellion among the Afrikanders of the Cape; and these quickly learned that threats only were needed to induce the English Government to yield to their demands. The English Garrison in Pretoria was withdrawn; no reparation was exacted from the Boers who, under the command of Cronje, had conducted themselves in an infamous manner at the siege of Potchefstroom, and had been guilty of actual treachery in the case of Captains Elliot and Lambert.

True, the Convention prescribed the suppression of slavery; gave guarantees for the safety of the persons and property of alien whites; placed the foreign relations of the Transvaal under the control of the British Government. But, in reality, it was of little value, for the English Resident was in the position of a man who has been conquered with the pretension of controlling the actions of the conquerer.

At the first election under the new conditions, Kruger, who represented the extreme reactionary party, was elected President, although he had accepted office under the British Government, while Joubert, who had declined any dealings with them, was defeated, being suspected of sympathising with the Uitlanders. His defeat does not prove him to have been in the minority. His partisans affirm, with a fair show of reason, that Mr. Kruger never greatly respected the sanct.i.ty of the ballot.

6.--_Violation by the Boers._

The powerlessness of the British Government to ensure respect for the Convention of 1881, explains its consent to the modification of 1884.

"It would be easy to find a _casus belli_ in the behaviour of the Boers," said Lord Derby in the House of Lords. But the Government had no wish to find one, and added to the weakness it had displayed after Majuba a fresh show of weakness, which convinced Mr. Kruger that the violation of a convention was the easiest method of obtaining anything he wanted.

In point of fact, it is the British Government that is responsible for the present war, through having inspired President Kruger with the conviction, that he had only to continue in 1899 the policy which had succeeded so well in 1880.

CHAPTER IV.

ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION OF 1884.[7]

1.--_Kruger's Point of View._

Dr. Kuyper has a simple method of solving difficulties. Speaking of Article 4 of the Convention of 1884, which gives England the right of veto on all treaties contemplated between the South African Republic and foreign powers, he says:--

"This is not Mr. Kruger's point of view. He, like us, has always stigmatised the occupation of 1877 as a violation of the Sand River Treaty."

Mr. Kruger did not stigmatise it thus when he accepted office from the English Government. But, in any case, he was party to the negotiations which resulted in the Conventions of 1881 and 1884. Dr. Kuyper tells us that neither he nor Mr. Kruger recognise them, considering them to have been vitiated by the Annexation of 1877. Be it so; but in that view discussion is useless. Mr. Kruger held them as null and void. He has chosen his own time to declare war. A government has always the right to tear up a treaty just as a private individual has the right to refuse implement of a contract. In the case of the individual, his refusal exposes him to a claim of damages; in the case of a country, the result is war. It is the simplest thing in the world; but then why go seeking for pretexts and explanations, and worrying oneself about making everybody believe that it was England who brought about the war, when after all she was only claiming the due execution of a convention?

[Footnote 7: _Le Siecle_, March 27th, 1900.]

2.--_England's Obligations._

When Mr. Gladstone committed the error of entering into the Convention of 1881, he fully believed that he was guaranteeing the rights of English and foreign residents in the Transvaal, of the Boers who might have compromised themselves with the English, and also of the natives.

At a meeting in Birmingham, on March 8th, 1881, on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, a resolution was pa.s.sed demanding that "satisfaction should be given to the claims of the Boers, without prejudice always to the rights of the natives and English residents." On July 25th, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach reminded the House of the necessity for exacting the necessary guarantees, and of ensuring the tranquillity and security of the English possessions.[8] He reminded the House of the position of those 3,700 Boer pet.i.tioners who had asked for annexation, and of the British residents who had invested capital in the Transvaal, upon the guarantee of the British Government. Mr. William Rathbone proposed a resolution demanding equal political rights for all the white population in the Transvaal. Mr. Chamberlain stated that "loyal settlers" should be protected in their legal rights, lives, and property. Mr. Gladstone, at the close of the debate, stated that "they would all be in a position of most perfect equality with the other inhabitants." (July 25th, 1881.)

Thus, the British Government deliberately affirmed its obligations towards the foreign, British, and black population of the Transvaal, and its determination not to forsake them.

[Footnote 8: Britain and the Boers. "Who is responsible for the War in South Africa?" By Lewis Appleton.]

3.--_Equality of Rights among the Whites according to Mr. Kruger in 1881._

The Blue Book of May, 1882, contains the report of the meeting of the British and Transvaal Commission of May 10th, 1881.

Mr. Kruger was a member of the latter, Sir Hercules Robinson was Chairman. Here is a dialogue between the Chairman and Mr. Kruger:--

"The Chairman: 'Before the Annexation, did British subjects enjoy the rights of complete freedom of trade throughout the Transvaal?

Were they on the same footing as the citizens of the Transvaal?'"

"Mr. Kruger: 'They were on the same footing as the burghers. In accordance with the Sand River Convention there was not the slightest difference.'"

"Sir Hercules Robinson: 'I presume you do not object to that continuing?'"

"Mr. Kruger: 'No. There will be equal protection for everybody.'"

"Sir Evelyn Wood: 'And equal privileges?'"

"Mr. Kruger: 'We make no difference so far as burgher rights are concerned. There may be, perhaps, some slight difference in the case of a young person who has just come into the country.'"

On the 26th May, Dr. Jorissen, a Boer delegate, reverting to the question, said:--

"Concerning the paragraph referring to a young person, I desire to remove what may create an erroneous impression. What Mr. Kruger meant to say is this; according to our law, a newcomer is not immediately considered a burgher. The words 'young person' have not reference to age but to length of residence. According to our ancient 'Grondwet' (const.i.tution) you must have resided one year in the country to become a burgher."

These minutes were not compiled for the present occasion, for they were published in 1882.

4.--_Preamble of the Convention of 1881._

The preamble of the convention is in the following terms:--

"Her Majesty's Commissioners for the settlement of the Transvaal territory, duly appointed as such by a Commission, &c., the 5th day of 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."

It is evident that this is not a treaty between two parties contracting on a footing of equality. The English Government grants the Transvaal the right of self-government, reserving the suzerainty under certain conditions. I have already shown the difficulties in the way of carrying out the Convention of 1881, the false position of the Resident who was as one conquered, was supposed to control the actions of the conqueror; and I have also spoken of the great and long suffering of the English Government.

Mr. R.D. Faure, who acted as interpreter to the Conference of 1884, has stated that "the Transvaal delegates asked for a clause suppressing the suzerainty, and that Lord Derby refused it." To this Mr. R.G.W. Herbert, Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies, replied "that the Commissioners did not venture to ask for the abolition of the suzerainty." They confined themselves to asking in their letter to Lord Derby of November 14th, 1883, that "the relation of dependence, _publici juris_, in which our Country finds itself placed with regard to the Crown of Great Britain should be replaced by that of two contracting parties."

Lord Derby on 29th November, answered that "neither in form, nor in substance could the Government accept such a demand." The Government thus refused to subst.i.tute a "treaty" for a "convention" in which the Queen granted to the Transvaal the right of self-government under certain conditions.