There is another point in this article which has attracted my attention
here. The first part of Article 14 says, "All persons other than
natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African
Republic, will have full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part
of the South African Republic." I am curious to know what laws were
meant here. Were they any laws which the sacred twenty-four members of
the First Raad might choose to impose, or were they such laws as might
be made conformable to civilised countries? If the laws were made by
the people of the Transvaal, we, of course, should not hear so much of
grievances, but the existing laws of the South African Republic have
mostly been proposed by President Kruger, and obsequiously enacted by
the twenty-four members of the First Raad without reference to the
people, and consequently they could not fail to be intolerable to the
larger number. The Grondwet throws a light upon the character of the
laws that were meant when the fourteenth Article of the Convention was
framed. Its first chapter declares that the Government shall be
Republican, that the territory of the Transvaal shall be free to all
foreigners, and that there shall be liberty of the Press. Then I think
that, as Her Majesty's Ministers admitted and sanctioned the terms of
the fourteenth Article, they understood the "Laws of the South African
Republic" to mean the Constitution, and such other laws as obtain in
civilised countries, for it is scarcely credible that they would have
signed the Convention had they understood that Englishmen could not be
admitted into the rights of burghership until after fifteen years'
residence, or if poverty was to be a barrier to that "full liberty"
sanctioned by the Grondwet and the fourteenth Article. We may also rest
assured that the British Commissioners would not have signed the
Convention if that "full liberty" did not include free speech and a free
Press, the full use of one's native language, the full exercise of every
faculty according to custom prevailing in all civilised countries, or if
certain British individuals who happened to misconduct themselves were
liable to receive excessive punishments, or if for writing a market note
in English a 5 pound fine was to be imposed, or if for grumbling an
Englishman was to be expelled from the country, or if for considering
himself as being a little better than a Kaffir he should be compelled to
wear a badge that marked him as inferior to a Boer. I think it may be
taken for granted also that no British Commissioner would have attached
his name to a Convention had he guessed that the Laws of the Republic
might mean any odd or fantastic whim that might enter into the head of a
choleric, obstinate old man like the present President for instance.