South Africa and the Transvaal War Volume I Part 9

Photo by Maull & Fox, London.]

The enemy, however, never directly attacked the town. They contented themselves with attempting to steal cattle and skirmishing, and generally hara.s.sing those within. Such fights as these were mainly due to British initiative, and these were not fraught with success to us. Of this period it is pitiful to write. British valour and endurance were exhibited to the uttermost, and many gallant actions at different sorties might be recorded. So also might be given, did s.p.a.ce allow, many instances of Boer cunning and Boer treachery--notably the acts of firing on the flag of truce, and on ambulance waggons. There can be no doubt that the firing on the flag of truce by the Boers was intentional. Their own explanation of the cause of this uncivilised proceeding may be taken for what it is worth. It appears that their troops were divided in opinion--that one party wished to continue fighting while another wished to surrender. Hence the exhibition of double-dealing which had so confounding an effect on their enemies, and so convenient a one for themselves. The Boers on the Majuba Hill fired on a flag of truce, the attack at Bronker's Spruit was made under cover of the white flag, and delay at Ingogo, to cover their movement from shelter, was gained by means of the same vile expedient.

When the news of the British reverses at Laing's Nek and Majuba reached Pretoria there was general consternation. But, as yet, none knew of the crushing blow that was still in store. On the 28th, 102 days after the hoisting of the Republican flag at Heidelberg, there came the almost incredible news that a peace had been concluded involving the surrender of the Transvaal to the Boers. At first it seemed impossible that the British Government could have consented to leave its loyal supporters in the terrible position in which they now found themselves. All who had sat patiently through trouble and trial, working with might and main, suffering from endless ills, in peril of their lives, and deprived of property and home, now joined in one heartrending wail of woe and disappointment. The consternation that followed the announcement of the ign.o.ble surrender is thus described by Mr. Nixon, who was an eye-witness and sharer of the general grief and humiliation:--

"The scene which ensued baffles description. The men hoisted the colours half-mast high. The Union Jack was pulled down and dragged through the mud. The distinctive ribbons worn round the hats of the men as badges were pulled off and trampled underfoot. I saw men crying like children with shame and despair. Some went raving up and down that they were Englishmen no longer; others, with flushed and indignant faces, sat contemplating their impending ruin, 'refusing to be comforted.' It was a painful, distressing, and humiliating scene, and such as I hope never to witness again. While I write, the remembrance of it comes vividly before me; and as I recall to mind the weeping men and women, the infuriated volunteers, and the despairing farmers and storekeepers, half crazy with the sense of wounded national honour, and the prospect of loss and ruin before them, my blood boils within me, and I cannot trust myself to commit to paper what I think. The lapse of two years has but deepened the feeling which I then experienced. The subject may perhaps be only unpleasant to people at home, but to me personally, who have seen the ruin and dismay brought upon the too credulous loyalists, the recollections it stirs up are more bitterly mortifying than words can describe."

Mr. Rider Haggard, who at this time was at Newcastle, has also recorded his experiences on the unhappy occasion. He says:--"Every hotel and bar was crowded with refugees who were trying to relieve their feelings by cursing the name of Gladstone with a vigour, originality, and earnestness that I have never heard equalled; and declaring in ironical terms how proud they were to be citizens of England--a country that always kept its word. Then they set to work with many demonstrations of contempt to burn the effigy of the right honourable gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, an example, by the way, that was followed throughout South Africa."

Talking of the loyal inhabitants in the Transvaal on whom the news burst 'like a thunderbolt,' he explains that they did not say much--because there was nothing to be said! They simply packed up their portable goods and chattels, and made haste to leave the country, "which they well knew would henceforth be utterly untenable for Englishmen and English sympathisers." Here was another great trek--a pathetic exodus of British loyalists whom Great Britain had betrayed. Away they went, these poor believing and deceived people, to try and make new homes and new fortunes, for as soon as the Queen's sovereignty was withdrawn houses and land were not worth a song, and their chances of earning a living were now entirely over, on account of their mistaken loyalty.

The condition of the town is thus described in a journal of the period:--

"The streets grown over with rank vegetation; the water-furrows unclean and unattended, emitting offensive and unhealthy stenches; the houses showing evident signs of dilapidation and decay; the side paths, in many places, dangerous to pedestrians--in fact, everything the eye can rest upon indicates the downfall which has overtaken this once prosperous city. The visitor can, if he be so minded, betake himself to the outskirts and suburbs, where he will perceive the same sad evidences of neglect, public grounds unattended, roads uncared for, mills and other public works crumbling into ruin.

These palpable signs of decay most strongly impress him. A blight seems to have come over this lately fair and prosperous town.

Rapidly it is becoming a 'deserted village,' a 'city of the dead.'"

RETROCESSION

The Government, through the medium of the Queen's Speech, had announced its intention of vindicating her Majesty's authority in the Transvaal. This was in January 1881. About that time President Brand, of the Orange Free State, formed himself into a species of Board of Arbitration between the contending parties--Boers and British. The reason for this intervention was threefold--first, he genuinely desired to avoid further bloodshed; second, he as genuinely hoped, under a mask of neutrality, to advance the Dutch cause throughout South Africa; and third, he amicably wished to put himself in the good graces of the British Government. Prior to General Colley's death Mr. Brand had urged him to allow peace to be made, and to guarantee the Boers not being treated as rebels if they submitted. General Colley was no quibbler with words. He would give no such a.s.surance. He proposed, in a telegram to the Colonial Secretary, to publish an amnesty on entering the Transvaal to all peaceable persons--excepting one or two prominent rebels. On the 8th of February (the day of the battle of the Ingogo), a telegram was received from home, promising a settlement upon the Boers ceasing from armed opposition. This showed that the Government had early begun to put their foot on the first rung of the ladder of disgrace--it can be called by no other term--and that the "climb-down" policy was already coming into practice. An unfortunate game at cross-purposes seems to have been going on, for Mr. Brand was proposing to Lord Kimberley that Sir H. de Villiers--the Chief-Justice of the Cape, should be appointed as Commissioner to go to the Transvaal to arrange matters, while at the same time Sir George Colley was telegraphing a plan to be adopted on entering the Transvaal, a plan which should grant a complete amnesty only to Boers who would sign a declaration of loyalty.

Lord Kimberley welcomed the suggestion of Mr. Brand, and agreed, if only the Boers would disperse, to appoint a Commission with power to "develop the permanent friendly scheme"; and "that, if this proposal is accepted, you now are authorised to agree to suspension of hostilities on our part." At the same time the War Office informed General Colley that the Government did not bind his discretion, but was anxious to avoid effusion of blood. Lord Kimberley's telegram was forwarded to Colley and to Joubert. Colley was dumfounded. He telegraphed back: "There can be no hostilities if no resistance is made; but am I to leave Laing's Nek in Natal territory in Boer occupation, and our garrisons isolated and short of provisions--or occupy former and relieve latter?"

Lord Kimberley's reply was characteristically ambiguous. The garrisons were to be left free to provision themselves, but Sir George was not to march to the relief of garrisons or occupy Laing's Nek if an arrangement were proceeding.

Meanwhile President Brand and Lord Kimberley held an unctuous telegraphic palaver, which may diplomatically be viewed as the beginning of the end. This humiliating end was hastened by the fiasco of Majuba on the 27th of February, though before it came to pa.s.s Sir Frederick Roberts was despatched with reinforcements to Natal. Sir Evelyn Wood a.s.sumed temporary command of the forces after Colley's death. Colonel Wood was asked by Lord Kimberley to obtain from Kruger a reply to a letter General Colley had forwarded before Majuba, requesting a reply in forty-eight hours. The reply, an ingenuous one, came on the 7th of March. Kruger was glad to hear that her Majesty's Government were inclined to cease hostilities, and suggested a meeting on both sides. On the 12th of March Lord Kimberley telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood, saying that if the Boers would desist from armed opposition, a Commission would be appointed to give the Transvaal complete internal self-government under British suzerainty, with a British Resident to look after the natives.

The Boers at the same time made a communication. They refused to negotiate on the basis of Lord Kimberley's telegram of the 8th, as it would be tantamount to an admission that they were in the wrong.

They would accept nothing short of the restoration of the Republic with a British protectorate. This the Home Government accepted, and thus the "climb down" was complete.

On the 23rd of March 1881, Sir Evelyn Wood, under orders from the Ministry, signed a treaty on behalf of the British, while the Boer leaders did the same on behalf of their const.i.tuents. By it, the Boers engaged to accept her Majesty as Suzerain "of the Transvaal, with a British Resident in the capital, but to allow the Republic complete self-government, to operate in six months' time. The Suzerain was to have control over the foreign relations of the Transvaal, and a Royal Commission for the protection of the natives and the decision of the boundary of the Republic would be appointed.

Persons guilty of acts contrary to laws of civilised warfare were to be punished; and property captured by either party was to be returned." In conclusion, it was arranged that all arms taken by the British Government when they annexed the country were to be handed back.

The Commission appointed by her Majesty's Government consisted of Sir Hercules Robinson, who replaced Sir Bartle Frere at the Cape; Sir Henry de Villiers, now Chief-Justice of Cape Colony; and Sir Evelyn Wood; President Brand was present in a neutral capacity.

Though nominally under the control of the British Government, its actions were pro-Boer. In justice to Sir Evelyn Wood, it is necessary to state that he did no more than obey orders laid down by his Government. Indeed it is said that when he was required to make the disgraceful peace, he called his officers around him, and asked them to witness that he was merely obeying orders, so that in days to come he might not submit a tarnished name to posterity.

Sir Frederick Roberts, on his arrival at Cape Town, was therefore informed that his services were no longer needed. Sir Evelyn Wood retained a force of 12,000 men in Natal, but the Government had decided on peace at any price, and peace was therefore restored.

THE BETRAYED LOYALISTS

Of the sufferings of the loyalists we must say little. Suffice it to picture the breaking up of homes gathered together with much patience after years of steady labour; the insults daily endured from a people who now held Great Britain in contempt; the disappointment and indignation, the wretchedness and despair caused to all who had faithfully adhered to the Crown.

A pet.i.tion was drafted to the House of Commons, but signatures were comparatively few. Many had no hope of redress from Great Britain, others naturally feared further Boer oppression. Some pa.s.sages of the pet.i.tion ran thus:--

"That your pet.i.tioners believe that the annexation was acquiesced in by a majority of the inhabitants, and was looked upon as an act calculated to create confidence and credit to the country, a belief which is borne out by the fact that almost all the old officials appointed by the former Government, or elected by the people, remained in office under the new Government; and your pet.i.tioners further believe, that if the promises expressed and implied in the annexation proclamation had been carried out fully in the spirit of the proclamation, the whole of the inhabitants would, in time, have become loyal subjects of her Majesty.

"That the annexation was followed by an immediate accession of confidence, and it marked the commencement of an era of progress and advancement, which has steadily increased up to the present time, despite the numerous drawbacks and disadvantages to which the country has been subjected, and some of which have been the result of Imperial action.

"That, notwithstanding the promises expressed and implied in the annexation proclamation, the country has been governed as a Crown Colony, and no opportunity has been afforded to the inhabitants of controlling the policy which has regulated its administration, and your pet.i.tioners are in no way responsible for the late lamentable war, or for the disgraceful peace which has concluded it.

"That the value of property increased at least threefold during the English occupation, and that the increase progressed in a ratio corresponding with the reliance placed on the promises of English officials. Indeed, some of your pet.i.tioners are prepared to state, on oath if required, that they invested money immediately after or in direct consequence of a statement by a Governor of the Transvaal or a Minister of the British Crown.

"That the towns are almost exclusively inhabited by loyal subjects, and English farmers and traders are scattered all over the country.

"That most of the loyal inhabitants intend to realise their property, even at a sacrifice, and to leave the country, but that those who are compelled by force of circ.u.mstances to remain in it will be deprived of the protection and security afforded by English rule, and they respectfully submit they have a right to ask that the fullest and most substantial pledges be exacted from the contemplated Boer Government for their safety, and for the exercise of their privileges as British subjects."

In reference to the unfortunate natives, and the humiliating peace, Mr. Rider Haggard, who had been Shepstone's private secretary, wrote pathetically to Sir Bartle Frere from Newcastle, Natal:--

"_June 6, 1881._

"I do not believe that more than half of those engaged in the late rebellion were free agents, though, once forced into committing themselves, they fought as hard as the real malcontents.... The natives are the real heirs to the soil, and should surely have some protection and consideration, some voice in the settlement of their fate. They outnumbered the Boers by twenty-five to one, taking their numbers at a million and those of the Boers at forty thousand, a fair estimate, I believe.... As the lash and the bullet have been the lot of the wretched Transvaal Kaffir in the past, so they will be his lot in the future.... After leading those hundreds of thousands of men and women to believe that they were once and for ever the subjects of her Majesty, safe from all violence, cruelty, and oppression, we have handed them over without a word of warning to the tender mercies of one, where natives are concerned, of the cruellest white races in the world.

"Then comes the case of the loyal Boers, men who believed us and fought for us, and are now, as a reward for their loyalty, left to the vengeance of their countrymen--a vengeance that will most certainly be wreaked, let the Royal Commission try to temper it as they will.

"Lastly, there are the unfortunate English inhabitants, three thousand of whom were gathered during the siege in Pretoria alone, losing their lives in a forsaken cause. I can a.s.sure you, sir, that you must see these people to learn how complete is their ruin. They have been pouring through here, many of those who were well-to-do a few months since, hardly knowing how to find food for their families."

On this subject Colonel Lanyon, who since the first outbreak had been shut up in Pretoria, also wrote tragically:--

"_March 29, 1881._

"Last night the saddest news I ever received in my life came in the shape of a letter from Wood.... After three Secretaries of State, three High Commissioners, and two Houses of Commons had said that the country should not be given back, it seems a terrible want of good faith to the loyals that this decision should have been arrived at. The scene this morning was a heart-breaking one; the women, who have behaved splendidly all through the siege, were crying and wringing their hands in their great grief; the children were hushed as if in a chamber of death; and the men were completely bowed down in their sorrow. Well they might, for the news brought home ruin to many, and great loss to all. I am ashamed to walk about, for I hear nothing but reproaches and utterances from heretofore loyal men which cut one to the very quick.... How I am to tell the natives I know not, for they have trusted so implicitly to our promises and a.s.surances.... One man who has been most loyal to us (an Englishman) told me to-day, 'Thank G.o.d my children are Afrikanders, and need not be ashamed of their country!'"

The feelings described by Sir Owen were openly echoed by all sensible men who knew anything of the country: they were certain that it was not within the power of Boer comprehension to understand "magnanimity" in an opponent. To the Boer, as to many an Englishman, this long-sounding word seemed more neatly to be interpreted by the more ugly but concise term "funk."

Sir Bartle Frere, writing of Sir George Colley in a letter to a friend, expressed his opinion roundly:--

"_March 31, 1881._

"Let no one ever say that England lost prestige through Sir George Colley. I do not like the word so much as 'character' or 'conduct'

which create it. But no country ever lost real prestige through defeat. Nelson, wounded and repulsed at Teneriffe; Grenvil, overpowered and dying on the deck of the _Revenge_, did as much for England's prestige as Marlborough at Blenheim or Wellington at Waterloo. Sir George Colley miscalculated his own and his enemy's strength, but he had nothing to do with disgraceful surrender, and I am sure had rather be where he now rests than sign a disgraceful peace, which is the only thing that can injure England's prestige."

Mr. R. W. Murray, of the _Cape Times_, writing to Sir Bartle Frere, thought bitterly indeed.

"Ask your English statesmen," he wrote, "if, in the history of the world, there was ever such a cruel desertion of a dependency by the parent State. How can England hope for loyalty from South Africans?

The moral of the Gladstone lesson is, that you may be anything in South Africa but loyal Englishmen."

These letters, taken haphazard from volumes of correspondence on the melancholy event of the time, serve better than the words of an outsider to show the terrible position in which the "magnanimity" of the British Ministers had placed their countrymen. One more extract and we must pa.s.s on.

[Ill.u.s.tration: COLOUR-SERGEANT and PRIVATE, THE SCOTS GUARDS.