Native Life in South Africa Part 25

If even the "hair" of a "white" British subject were to be touched in China or j.a.pan or Turkey or Russia, the whole of the political parties of England, with their usual patriotism, will rise to the occasion, and with one accord demand the use of physical force against that country.

But here in South Africa, on the day the "Act" came into law, all agreements with regard to land were terminated, and thousands of the Natives found themselves ruined and homeless. From tenants they have become serfs.

If the Imperial Parliament looks with complacency on these tyrannical proceedings of a local Parliament, then the British public should not be surprised if the intelligent and thoughtful among the subject races of "Britain" consider "British justice"

and "Russian tyranny" to be synonymous terms.

Let us draw attention to one more letter, by an Anglo-African to the 'Daily News', which was typical of the rest: --

== THE BLACK MAN'S BURDEN

Sir, -- Those of your readers who, like myself, have some first-hand knowledge of the Natives of South Africa, know that this grievance voiced by the native deputation is a very real one. That such a deputation should have to come to England to urge such a plea is humiliating enough to them and to us. That their plea should be urged in vain would be disastrous to the last degree.

If the Natives' Land Act is the best thing the Union Government can do in the discharge of its responsibilities to the native tribes placed under its care by the King, then many of us would have to revise our faith in self-government as a fit instrument of national evolution; and would, moreover, strenuously resist the ultimate incorporation of the northern territories within the Union as being infinitely worse for the black man than even government under Chartered Company control.

One hopes that it is not yet too late for both Boer and Briton in South Africa to see that this debas.e.m.e.nt of the whole idea of self-government is to affront and discourage all in Great Britain who saw in the grant of its own political freedom to that great country a healing for its many woes. In the meantime Liberalism must back the native deputation at all costs, and it is well that 'The Daily News and Leader' should lead the way.

== ONE OBJECT OF THE S.A. WAR: THE LIBERATION OF THE NATIVE

One object of the South African War was to liberate the Native in the Transvaal. One result of it is that we have practically less opportunity to interfere in his behalf than we had under the Convention with the South African Republic. Interference in the internal affairs of a self-governing colony -- in this case a colony in which a small number of white men govern a large number of black -- has ceased to be within the realm of practical politics.

But if this political interference is impossible, moral remonstrance is all the more in point. There is in all parts of the world a better and more enlightened as well as a duller and more callous public opinion, and the better opinion of a colony is powerfully reinforced by judicious expression of feeling in the mother country.

There are occasions when that opinion should even be formally expressed by the Colonial Office or by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Now, there is at present a deputation of South African Natives in this country appealing against the ratification of the Natives' Land Act of 1913.

Mr. Harcourt has told them that he cannot interfere, nor can he any more than if he were an ornamental registering clerk.

But he can if he chooses speak winged words to the South African Government, which, having alienated the entire white working population, is now exciting the same hostility among the blacks.

The Act itself probably has a deeper motive. It prevents the sale of white men's land to the Natives or native land to the white men.

This would have the effect of securing to the Native that very small portion of his own country which he has still managed to retain. This probably commended the measure to those who because they care for elementary justice are called negrophile, the colour of justice in a white man's eyes being apparently black.

The other effect would be to prevent those Kafirs who are becoming educated and rising in the social scale from acquiring land.

As in proportion to population the white man has by far the greater amount of land, it is clear that he does not come badly out of the bargain.

However, it is not the Act itself of which the most serious complaint is made.

What makes matters worse is the interim arrangement that pending the delimitation of native land by a Commission no Native whose lease of land has expired shall be able to renew it for a money rent or for any consideration whatever except labour service.

It is contended that farmers are taking advantage of this prohibition to exact unpaid labour services from Natives, and are thus in effect reducing them to serfdom. It is clear that the position in which the Native is placed renders this only too possible, and it is an extraordinary thing that any such violent alteration of status should be made before instead of after the report of a Commission. For our part we cannot believe that men like Generals Botha and s.m.u.ts deliberately desire to reduce the Native to the condition of a semi-servile, landless labourer, and we would venture on behalf of the many Liberals who fought steadily for the right of South Africa to govern herself to appeal to them to extend a similar consideration to the people of whose destinies they have become responsible, and to suspend the operation of the Act until the administrative preparations for carrying it out with equity have been completed. -- 'Manchester Guardian'.

== VIEWS OF THE "STAR"

We have always realized that one of the gravest problems of self-government in South Africa is the native question. On the one hand, South African Colonial opinion -- by which is meant "white" opinion -- will bitterly resent any shadow of dictation from Downing Street; on the other hand, the conscience of the British people cannot remain indifferent to any flagrant oppression of or injustice to the native races under the British flag. A very difficult question of this kind is raised by the deputation of South African Natives, which is now in this country, seeking to move the Colonial Office on the subject of the Natives' Land Act recently pa.s.sed by General Botha.

The ultimate object of General Botha's plan is the greatest exodus since the days of Moses; it is apparently to get rid of black landholders in areas in which the majority of the landowners are white, and to buy up tracts of land elsewhere from white landowners, in order to settle Natives upon them. In this way the black and the white races, so far as landholding is concerned, will be segregated into separate areas, with a reduction of possible cause of friction, and in some respects this is an excellent policy. But the trouble is that General Botha has pa.s.sed the first part of his policy and has left the second part to the future. The Land Act provides that hereafter, "except with the approval of the Governor-General" -- which proviso is mere leather and prunella -- a Native shall not buy or hire any land from a person other than a Native. The effect of this is that at the termination of any existing tenancy a Native will have to relinquish his farm, and will not be able to hire or buy another from any white owner. If the Government had provided farms in the proposed native reserves for these men, their policy would be complete, but nothing has been done, and the fulfilment of that promise depends upon General Botha's continuance in office, and does not bind his successors.

It is not surprising the South African Natives regard this Act as a means of driving them into the labour market either at the mines, or for white farmers. Mr. Dower, the Secretary for Native Affairs, addressing a meeting of Natives at Thaba Nchu, in the Free State, gave a strong hint of this when he said: "My best advice to you is to sell your stock and go into service." Here at home we hear a great deal about the "magic of property" and the importance of giving the worker an interest in the soil he tills; but in South Africa they apparently agree with the southerner in the 'Biglow Papers' that

Libbaty's a kind o' thing Thet don't agree with n.i.g.g.e.rs.

It is clear that it is the duty of the Colonial Office to guarantee, in conjunction with the South African Government, the carrying out of the full policy as outlined by General Botha, and we hope occasion will be taken to urge action on these lines. -- 'Star'.

== CAN BRITAIN PREVENT SLAVERY

A question of great importance and a question which may easily strain the links that bind the various parts of the Empire and the Mother Country, has arisen in South Africa owing to the operation of the Natives' Land Act pa.s.sed last year by the Union Parliament. The Native question is by far the greatest problem South Africa has to solve, and its difficulties are so great that n.o.body has been able to advance any feasible scheme for its settlement, though there have been many suggestions as to the broad lines on which the matter may be settled.

The Land Act is an attempt to establish modified segregation -- i.e., confining the white man and the black to separate areas of the country.

It is by no means a well-thought-out nor a very practicable enactment, and unfortunately has had the effect of greatly irritating the Natives throughout the Union. The Natives do not think they are being treated fairly, and have used every legitimate means to obtain a hearing.

These means, however, are exceedingly meagre, practically non-existent, since they have no one to represent them, and as they have no vote they can bring no pressure on Parliament. Having failed in South Africa, they have sent a deputation to Great Britain, since, as they are British subjects, they consider that Great Britain should look after them.

Arriving here, they find the Home Government cannot interfere in the internal policy of a self-governing colony, and so are left with no means of obtaining redress. It is surely impossible to admit that Great Britain can do nothing for the ma.s.s of the native population, although at the moment it appears to them that though they are subjects of the King he cannot even hear their appeal, and will do nothing for them, and has abandoned them, a state of affairs which is quite incomprehensible to them and leads them to depend solely on themselves to obtain redress -- and that way rebellion lies.

Britain is in an awkward position as she still has obligations to secure justice to the Natives. If South Africa were to enact slavery, would Britain still be able to do nothing to prevent it?

Ousting the Native

Surely Mr. Harcourt can suggest to the South African Government the necessity of appointing a Commission to inquire into the working of the Act, a Commission which would include Natives as well as whites. That the Natives have a material grievance is certain.

The Act says that there shall be certain areas in which no Native can own or lease land, and similarly areas in which no white can own or lease land. That within a certain period the Natives owning land in the white area must sell out, and when their leases run out they shall not be renewed, similarly for the whites in the black area.

Now at present no black area has been delimited, and the Commission performing this task will not report for a year or more; meanwhile the blacks are being turned off the land and have nowhere to go.

The only course left to them is to hire themselves out as servants to the white; and, in fact, that is the real object of the Act.

The farmers found that the Natives were acquiring land rapidly, and working for themselves rather than for the white man.

There was a shortage of labour, and farmers wished to force the Natives to work for them rather than for themselves. This ejection with no other alternative is obviously most unfair, especially as there are indications that the native areas will not be delimited for a considerable time. The South Africans have always feared a combined action of all the native tribes, but surely by this Act they have chosen the simplest way of irritating every Native in South Africa.

This condition of affairs is exceedingly grave, and, though the results are suppressed at present, there is no knowing what may happen if the British Government, whom the Natives regard as their final court of appeal, shows itself powerless. We know that the native question in South Africa is terribly difficult, but it is an obvious course to be pursued in order to maintain good relations between the two races that grievances should be fairly heard and dealt with justly.

-- 'Review of Reviews'.

Chapter XVIII The P.S.A. and Brotherhoods

The Brotherhood must help not only the spiritual part of life, but also in social matters. They should always help the down-trodden, showing the brotherly feeling which was portrayed throughout the life of Christ.

Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, M.P., President of the Brotherhood Movement, at Weston-super-Mare.

In a previous chapter we mentioned a yellow-covered newspaper which abused our English friends for supporting the appeal of the native deputation.

It characterized the advocacy of the aims of the deputation by the Brotherhood as "Rubbish -- a commodity which can always be picked up, and quite a lot of people spend much of their time in collecting it."

"Why," exclaims this paper with indignation, "we had imagined that the 'Brotherhood' movement was of a religious nature."

Our answer to this taunt is, that just because the Brotherhood movement opposes the Natives' Land Act it must be religious, for Anglican Bishops in South Africa have denounced this law in their episcopal charges (vide 'Church Chronicle', 1913, October issues), and Anglican Bishops in South Africa are nothing if they are not religious.

Nonconformist Ministers have condemned this law in their annual synods and conferences. Ex-Premier W. P. Schreiner, K.C., C.M.G., at present the London representative of the Union of South Africa, is the son of an old South African missionary. He was member of the Union Parliament when this law was pa.s.sed and was one of the few senators who had the pluck to vote against it after condemning it; and it is monstrous to suggest that these pious and learned men could conspire to denounce a law just for the pleasure of denouncing it.

And to our untutored mind it seems that if it be true that all these good men are working for the spread of Christ's Kingdom in South Africa, then we must be pardoned the inference that in the same country protagonists of this Act are working for the establishment of another kingdom.

This inference grows into a belief when it is recalled that the men who are responsible for the recent commotion are the very men who forced this law upon the Government.

In the various reports of the South African Church Synods of 1915, the character of this "Church closing" law stands out in bold relief, and it is there revealed as an opponent of Christ and His work. Let us refer to only one of them. "The native work of the (Transvaal) District has been seriously hampered by the operation of the Natives' Land Act.

As the result of evictions under the Act, some of the Churches on farms have ceased to exist." -- Cape 'Methodist Churchman', Jan. 22, 1915.

The numerous South African opponents of this law had no share in the recent upheaval, and the Brotherhoods by lending their platforms to a campaign in opposition to a law that emanates from such a quarter show that their cause, in addition to religion, is on the side of law, order, and const.i.tutional liberty. We know, of course, that no doctrine of liberty would be acceptable in South Africa that did not also imply "liberty to ill-treat the blacks".

Hence the Brotherhood propaganda, being colour-blind, explains the fury of the London mouthpiece of "lily-white" South Africa.

Early in July the deputation called at the Brotherhood headquarters in Norfolk Street, Strand, to explain to the National Brotherhood Council the object of their mission. Mr. William Ward, the national secretary, received the deputation in person; Mr. John McIntosh, secretary to the London Federation, Mr. W. Mann and other officers being also present.

They invited the deputation to the Quarterly Meeting of the London Federation at Bishopsgate on July 14, 1914, after which the deputation received invitations to address meetings in various parts. Some of these engagements still remain unfulfilled. A list of the centres visited is given at the end of this chapter.

At the Bishopsgate gathering Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., was the "star turn".

He welcomed the deputation and regretted the cold reception accorded to it by the Colonial Secretary. He added, however, that if they proceeded along the same moderate lines followed by Dr. Rubusana and Mr. Msane (the two members of the deputation who spoke that evening) he felt certain that they would do more good for their cause in the country than they did at the Colonial Office.