Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Taavi Kalju and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
BOER POLITICS
BY YVES GUYOT
_Translated from the French_
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1900
INTRODUCTION.
A word in explanation of this English edition is perhaps not
unnecessary.
It will be remembered that the arguments in the following pages appeared
originally in the columns of _Le Siècle_, and from the correspondence
between M. Yves Guyot and Dr. Kuyper and M. Brunetière (Appendix B), the
reader will understand how the publication of _Le Siècle_ articles in
pamphlet form arose.
In the month of May when M. Yves Guyot's _La Politique Boer_ made its
appearance, the supply of literature by more or less competent judges on
South African affairs was already so formidable in this country, that an
English publication of his pamphlet was apparently not wanted. Moreover,
as my master's arguments were written for readers on the continent and
not for those of Great Britain, such a publication was not thought of at
the time.
Of the first editions of _La Politique Boer_ placed before the reading
public in various countries, a few thousand copies were sent to London.
The demand, however, exceeded the supply to such a large extent, and so
many letters were received at this office from British readers
(unfamiliar with the French language) asking for a translation, that an
English dress of _La Politique Boer_ was decided upon.
As the translation was proceeding various incidents of importance in
connection with the South African crisis took place. These were
commented upon by M. Yves Guyot in _Le Siècle_ and added to the
existing pamphlet; the English edition is consequently more up-to-date
than the original.
Our thanks for valuable assistance given in the translation are largely
due to Mrs. Ellen Waugh and Mr. Charles Baxter.
M. Yves Guyot has renounced his author's rights, and the profits to _Le
Siècle_, resulting from this publication, will be handed in two equal
shares to the societies here and in South Africa which represent the
interests of the widows and orphans of English and Boer combatants who
have given their lives for their countries.
JULES HEDEMAN.
THE LONDON OFFICE OF _Le Siècle_
32, CHARING CROSS, S.W.
_25th October, 1900._
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE.
1. State of the Question.--2. Pro-Boer Argument, and the Jameson
Raid.--3. Profits of the Jameson Raid.--4. Logical Consequences
of the Jameson Raid
ix.
CHAPTER I.
BOER APOLOGISTS.
1. Disregard of Facts, and Subordination to the Vatican.--2. The
Boers, the Natives and Slavery.--3. "Essentially a Man of War
and Politics" 1
CHAPTER II.
ENGLISH AND BOERS.
1. The ideal of the Boers.--2. The English in South Africa.--3.
"The Crime."--4. British Sphere of Influence in 1838.--5.
England, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State 9
CHAPTER III.
THE ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL AND THE CONVENTIONS OF 1881
AND 1884.
1. The "Gold Mines" Argument.--2. Boer Anarchy.--3. The Boers
saved by the English.--4.--The Annexation of the Transvaal, and
the Conventions of 1881 and 1884.--5. The Convention of 1881
inapplicable.--6. Violation by the Boers 17
CHAPTER IV.
ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION OF 1884.
1. Krüger's point of view.--2. England's Obligations.--3.
Equality of Rights among the Whites according to Mr. Krüger in
1881.--4. Preamble of the Convention of 1881.--5. Articles, 4,
7, and 14 of the Convention of 1884 24
CHAPTER V.
LAW AND JUSTICE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
1. Contempt of Justice.--2. Confusion of Powers 31
CHAPTER VI.
POLICE, JUSTICE AND LAW, ACCORDING TO BOER METHODS.
1. Legal and Judicial System of the Transvaal.--2. The Police
(the Edgar Case).--3. An ingenious Collusion.--4. The Lombaard
Case 36
CHAPTER VII.
"SECURITY OF INDIVIDUALS" ACCORDING TO BOER IDEAS.
1. The Amphitheatre Case.--2. Valuation of Bail.--3. The
Uitlanders' Petition.--4. Security of the Individual according
to Boer Ideas.--5. The Murder of Mrs. Appelbe 42
CHAPTER VIII.
Boer Oligarchy 48
CHAPTER IX.
THE GOLD MINES.
1. "That Gold is mine!"--2. The Proportion of Gold per Ton.--3.
Cost of Production.--4. A Gold Mine is an Industrial
Exploitation.--5. Distribution of the Gold Production.--6. Cost
of Production, and the Transvaal.--What the "Vultures" brought 52
CHAPTER X.
FINANCIAL POLICY OF THE BOERS.
1. Receipts of the Boer Exchequer.--2. Budget Assessment of the
Burghers.--3. Salaries of Boer Officials.--4. The Debit side of
the Boer Budget.--5. New Taxes.--6. Attempt to raise a Loan.--7.
Fleecing the Uitlander 59
CHAPTER XI.
MONOPOLIES IN THE TRANSVAAL AND THE NETHERLANDS RAILWAY
COMPANY.
1. Article XIV. and the Monopolies.--2. The Dynamite
Monopoly.--3. Railways.--4. The Drift Question.--5. Methods of
Exaction 66
CHAPTER XII.
CAPITALIST INTRIGUES AND THE WAR.
1. A war of Capitalists.--2. A Local Board.--3. A deliberating
Council.--4. Timidity of the Chamber of Mines.--5. The Petition
and the Despatch of May 10th 73
CHAPTER XIII.
THE FRANCHISE.
1. Impossible Comparisons.--2. Policy of Re-action.--3. The
Bloemfontein Conference 80
CHAPTER XIV.
THE FRANCHISE AFTER THE CONFERENCE OF BLOEMFONTEIN.
1. A Krüger Trick.--2. The Bill passed by the Volksraad--3.
Pretended Concessions.--4. The Joint Commission.--5.
Bargaining.--6. The Conditions, and Withdrawal of Proposals.--7.
The Franchise is Self-Government 87
CHAPTER XV.
THE SUZERAINTY OF ENGLAND AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN
REPUBLIC.
1. Who Raised the Question of Suzerainty?--2. The Suzerainty and
the Conference of the Hague 95
CHAPTER XVI.
THE ARBITRATION QUESTION.
1. How the Transvaal interprets Arbitration.--2. Mr.
Chamberlain's Conditions 101
CHAPTER XVII.
THE BOER ULTIMATUM.
1. Dr. Kuyper's Logic.--2. Despatches of 8th and 22nd
September.--3. The Ultimatum 108
CHAPTER XVIII.
DR. KUYPER'S FINAL METAPHOR.
1. Where are the Peace Lovers?--2. Moral Worth of the Boers.--3.
A Lioness Out of Place.--4. Moral Unity by Means of Unity of
Method 113
APPENDIX.
_a._--ENGLAND, HOLLAND AND GERMANY 119
_b._--DR. KUYPER'S ADMISSION
1. Offer to Dr. Kuyper to Reproduce his Article.--2. Dilatory
Reply of Dr. Kuyper.--3. Withdrawal of Dr. Kuyper.--4. Mr.
Brunetière's Refusal.--5. The Queen of Holland and Dr.
Kuyper's Article 124
_c._--THE LAST PRO-BOER MANIFESTATION 130
_d._--SOUTH AFRICAN CRITICS 136
_e._--THE TRANSVAAL AND THE PEACE CONFERENCE HELD IN PARIS
FROM SEPTEMBER 30TH TO OCTOBER 5TH, 1900 151
PREFACE.
THE QUESTION.
I have endeavoured in the following pages to separate the Transvaal
question from the many side issues by which it is obscured.
In the "Affaire Dreyfus" I constantly recurred to the main
point--Dreyfus was condemned upon the "bordereau"; Dreyfus was not the
author of the "bordereau," therefore he was not responsible for the
documents named in the "bordereau."
In this case, in like manner, there is but one question:--Has or has not
the government of the South African Republic acted up to the convention
of 1884, and is the English government bound to regard that convention
as of no effect with regard to the Uitlanders who have established
themselves in the Transvaal on the faith that England would insist upon
its being respected?
_Pro-Boer Argument._
Pro-Boers refuse to recognise this point, as did M. Cavaignac when, in
his speech of July 7th, 1898, he abandoned the "bordereau" to substitute
for it the Henry forgery.
They keep talking of the Great Trek of 1836; of England's greed; of the
gold mines; and, above all, of the Jameson raid. The Jameson raid is
their pet grievance; it takes the place of all argument. The Uitlanders
may well say that "Jameson has been Krüger's best friend."
Notwithstanding, the Jameson raid is the best proof of the powerlessness
of England to protect the interests of her subjects against the
pretentions of the Pretoria Government.
In 1894, Lord Ripon had already made ineffectual representations to that
Government concerning the contempt with which it was treating the
Convention of 1884.
The Uitlanders had approached the Volksraad in a petition signed by
14,800 persons. The petitioners did not ask that the Republic should be
placed under the control of the British Government; on the contrary,
they postulated the maintenance of its independence; all that they asked
was for "equitable administration and fair representation." This
petition was received with angry contempt. "Protest, protest as much as
you like," said Mr. Krüger, "I have arms, and you have none."
It is contended that if President Krüger did provide himself to a
formidable extent with munitions of war, it was not until after the
Jameson Raid.
Here the connexion between cause and effect is not very clear; Jameson
once beaten there was no further cause to arm against him. But from the
Uitlanders' petition, to which allusion has been made, it is evident
that armaments had begun before. Among the alleged grievances we find
the following:--
"A policy of force is openly declared against us; £250,000 have
been expended on the construction of forts; upon one alone,
designed to terrorise the inhabitants of Johannesburg, £100,000 has
been spent. Large orders have been given to Krupp for big guns and
maxims; and it is said that German Officers are coming to drill the
burghers."
The Uitlanders of Johannesburg treated with contumely, adopted the
theories made use of by the Boers in their Petition of Rights of
February 17th, 1881, by which they justified their insurrection against
British rule, of December, 1880.
"Then the cause was unexpectedly helped on by the courageous
resistance of O. Bezuidenhout against the seizure of his household
effects for non-payment of taxes. Here was a breach of the law easy
to lay hold of; here was a crime indeed! It was illegal,
undoubtedly, but illegal in the same sense as was the refusal of
Hampden to pay the four or five shillings "ship money"; the taking
of den Briel by the Watergeuzen (Waterbeggars) in 1572; as was the
throwing overboard of a cargo of tea in Boston; as was the plot in
Cape Colony against the importation of convicts. All these acts
were illegal, but of such are the illegalities in which a people
takes refuge, when a Government fails in its duty to a law higher
than that of man."
In virtue of the principles invoked by the Boers, the Johannesburg
Uitlanders entered into a conspiracy; Jameson was to come to their aid
after they had risen. Messrs. Leonard and Phillips put themselves in
communication with Cecil Rhodes. He listened to their manifesto, and the
instant they came to the mention of free trade in South Africa, he said:
"That will do for me." The supposition that he desired to annex the
Transvaal is absurd.[1] He has admitted that he gave his personal
co-operation to Jameson without having first consulted his colleagues of
the Chartered Company. Jameson was to have gone to the assistance of the
Uitlanders; not to forestall the insurrection, which was fixed for
January 4th. On December 29th, Jameson invaded the Transvaal with 480
men. They got as far as Krugersdorp, about 31 miles distant from
Johannesburg, and after a fight at Doornkop, in which the Raiders'
losses were 18 killed and 40 wounded, and on the Boers' side four killed
and five wounded, they surrendered on the condition that their lives
should be spared.
That stipulation is forgotten when we fall to admiring President
Krüger's magnanimity in handing over Jameson to the British Government.
[Footnote 1: Fitzpatrick. "The Transvaal from Within." p. 122.]
_The Profits from the Jameson Raid._
The trial by the Government of Pretoria of the sixty-four members of the
"Reform Committee" was held in Johannesburg. Four of them, Mr. Lionel
Phillips, Colonel Rhodes, Mr. George Farrar, and Mr. Hammond were
condemned to death. The remainder were sentenced to two years'
imprisonment and £2,000 fine, or failing payment, to another year's
imprisonment and three years' banishment. The Executive reserved to
themselves the right to confiscate their property.
In commutation of the four death sentences, the Government exacted
£100,000; fifty-six other prisoners paid in a sum of £112,000. One of
the accused died, another who had pleaded not guilty, was so ill that
his sentence was not carried out; Messrs. Sampson and Davies refused to
pay the fine. The British Government left Mr. Krüger a free hand in the
matter; it cannot be reproached with having interposed on their
behalf--although it was its own representatives who persuaded the
Johannesburg conspirators to deliver up their arms. In the moment of
danger many and various hopes were held out by Mr. Krüger in his
proclamation of December 30th, 1895. The danger once past, the promises
were forgotten. He remembered the Jameson Raid only as an excuse for
demanding an indemnity of £677,938 3s. 6d. for material damages, and a
further £1,000,000 for damages "moral and intellectual."
In February, 1896, Mr. Chamberlain proposed to him "the autonomy of that
portion occupied by mining industries" (see details of the proposal,
letter of Mr. Chamberlain, published in _Le Siècle_, July 5th, 1899.)
Mr. Krüger refused contemptuously. At the same time he got the Volksraad
to pass a bill giving him the right to expel any foreigner, at his
discretion, at a fortnight's notice. Mr. Chamberlain reminded him that
this bill was contrary to Act 14 of the Convention of 1884. Krüger took
no notice of this remonstrance, and the bill became law on October 24th.
In December, 1896, Mr. Chamberlain made a renewed protest.
The correspondence continued. Mr. Chamberlain recapitulated the breaches
of the Convention of 1884 committed by the Boer Government. In the
summer of 1897, the act was at last repealed, but always with the
unavowed intention of re-enacting it in another form.
Mr. Krüger persistently continued to refuse all demands for reform,
becoming more and more insolent, while, thanks to the wealth brought to
the exchequer by the gold mines, he continued to increase the very
armaments against which the petitioners of 1894 had protested.
To all representations, his answer was "The Jameson Raid." To all
Europe, his plea was "The Jameson Raid." If you mention Transvaal
affairs to a Pro-Boer, he shuts you up at once with "what about the
Jameson Raid?" He will listen to no arguments; and loses his temper. If
you suggest that the Jameson Raid bears a certain analogy to the
expedition of Garibaldi's One Thousand, he gazes at you with amazement.
If you proceed to remark that the Jameson Raid took place at the close
of the year 1895; that we are now in 1900; that it is _res judicata_;
that the British Government left Boer Justice a free hand to deal with
the conspirators, he accuses you of having been bought by England. Not a
whisper, of course, is heard about the millions of secret service money
placed at the disposal of Dr. Leyds.
_The Logical Consequences of the Jameson Raid._
According to the Boers, they are briefly: (1) The Jameson Raid of Dec.
29th, 1895, gives the South African Republic the right in perpetuity to
regard the Convention of 1884 as null and void. (2) The Jameson Raid
gives the Government of the South African Republic the right to treat
all Uitlanders, especially the British, as Boers treat Kaffirs. (3) The
Jameson Raid gives the Government of the South African Republic an
undefined and perpetual right to plunder the Uitlanders.
YVES GUYOT.
CHAPTER I.
BOER APOLOGISTS.[2]
1.--_Disregard of Facts and Subordination to the Vatican._
I notice with satisfaction, that people, who a short time ago would not
listen to a word about the Transvaal, are now no longer animated by the
same spirit of confidence, and are even beginning to wonder whether they
have not fallen into the same mistake made by so many in the Dreyfus
case, who only began to entertain doubts after the exposure of the Henry
forgery.
I have been asked "Why have you not answered Dr. Kuyper's article in the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_?" and it appears that Dr. Leyds has been heard
to say in Brussels: "M. Yves Guyot has made no answer to Dr. Kuyper's
article." As though it were unanswerable!
I might well retort with the question: "Why does the Pro-Boer press
never reply to counter arguments save by vague phrases, and evading the
real issue? Why does the French press, in particular, confine itself to
lauding "the brave Boers" and the "venerable President Krüger," and to
extolling the virtues with which it credits them, instead of studying
their actual social condition, and giving its readers the plain facts?
Why do we not find one word in our papers of the articles by M.M.
Villarais and Tallichet, published in the _Bibliothèque
Universelle_.[3]"
It is an exact repetition of the method employed by the Anti-Dreyfusard
papers in the Dreyfus case. But the odd thing is, that many who were
then exasperated by it, now look upon it as quite natural, and are not
surprised to find themselves bosom friends of Drumont, Rochefort, Judet,
and Arthur Mayer. The Transvaal question unites them in a "nationalist"
policy, which, if it were to go beyond mere words, would result in a war
with England and might complete, by a naval Sedan, the disaster of 1870.
The majority of Frenchmen have brought to the scrutiny of the matter a
degree of pigheadedness that clearly proves the influence of our method
of subjective education. We state our faith on words, and
believe--because it is a mystery.
The _Revue des Deux Mondes_, in which Dr. Kuyper's article is published
(February 1st), has become an organ of Leo XIII. Those free-thinkers,
protestants, and Jews in France who take part in the Anglophobe
movement, are thus naively furthering the aims of the Vatican and the
Jesuits, whose endeavour has ever been to stir up Europe against
England--England that shall never be forgiven for the liberalism of her
institutions, for the independence of her thinkers, and for her
politics, to which they attribute, not without reason, the downfall of
the temporal power.
The apologetic portion of Dr. Kuyper's article shows the Boers in their
true light. Far from refuting it, I will quote from it. The critical
part obscures the points at issue. I will clear them up.
[Footnote 2: _Le Siècle_, March 20th, 1900.]
[Footnote 3: See _Le Siècle_, February 3rd and March 14th, 1900.]
2.--_The Boers, the Natives, and Slavery._
Dr. Kuyper's article begins with the words: "Once more the yuletide has
sent forth the angelic message 'Peace on Earth,' even to where the
natives gather at the humble chapels of our missionaries."
Dr. Kuyper then undertakes to show us how the Boers understand "the
angelic message" in their treatment of the coloured race. He begins by
waxing wroth with the English who, in 1816, in consequence of the
representations of their missionaries, had instituted an enquiry as to
the manner in which the Boers treated their slaves, "England humiliated
them before their slaves," he says. The English also protected natives.
Dr. Kuyper says:--
"With little regard for the real rights of their ancient colonists,
_the English prided themselves on protecting the imaginary rights
of the natives_."
The italics are his own. This virtuous protester continues:--
"Deceived by the reports from their missionaries, little worthy of
belief, and led astray by a sentimental love for primitive man,
'The Aborigines Protection Societies,' so drastically exposed by
Edmund Burke, saw their opportunity. With their Aborigines
Societies, the deists posed in the political arena as protectors of
the native races, while, in religious circles, the Christians with
their missionary societies posed as their benefactors."
Dr. Kuyper forgives neither the deists nor the missionaries. And what of
the Boers?
"The Boers had introduced a system of slavery copied from that
adopted by the English in their American colonies; but greatly
modified. I do not deny that, at times, the Boers have been too
harsh, and have committed excesses....
"The Boers are not sentimentalists, but are eminently practical.
They recognised that these Hottentots and Basutos were an inferior
race....
"The Boers have always resolutely faced the difficulty of the
colour question so persistently kept out of view by the English."
And Dr. Kuyper goes on to speak of the multiplication of the blacks in
South Africa. He dare not point to the logical solution, which would be
to regulate matters by extermination, pure and simple; but he gives vent
to his hatred of the English who, far from checking that multiplication,
assist it by their humane treatment of the natives. He is especially
wrathful with English missionaries, "those black-frocked gentlemen." He
states that the Boers do their best "to keep them at a distance"; and he
cites, as a fact, which fills him with indignation and alarm:--
"A coloured bishop has been appointed president of a kind of negro
council in Africa."
I confine myself to quoting Dr. Kuyper. He shows too plainly the
character, passions, and hatreds of the Boers, to render comment
necessary. He acknowledges that the Great Trek, the emigration
northwards, did not begin till after 1834, when, according to the
manifesto of 1881, known as the Petition of Rights, "in consequence of
the enforced sale of their slaves, the old patriarchal farmers were
ruined." This document represents that it was treating them "with
contumely" to offer them money compensation, adding regretfully "that
the greater portion of the money remained in the hands of London
swindlers." The regret and the contumely are difficult to reconcile.
Ancestors of the Boers had more than once acted in a similar manner
towards the Dutch East India Company when dissatisfied with their
administration, and unwilling to pay their taxes. But Pro-Boers have a
curious habit of magnifying things. One would imagine, to hear them
speak, that every Boer in the Cape had packed wife, children, and goods
into ox-wagons and had trekked north. As a matter of fact, the greater
proportion remained behind, and their descendants formed the majority of
the 376,000 whites enumerated in the census of 1891. The Great Trek was
really composed of various detachments which started one after another
in 1836. Statistics of the numbers of trekkers vary from 5,000 to
10,000. I have not been able to trace whether these figures refer only
to adult males, or whether they include the women and children. In any
case, when discussing South African affairs, we must always bear in mind
the small number of persons concerned, in comparison with the vast
extent of the area in question.
Not only these trekkers, but all who, from the period of the seventeenth
century onwards, had had the tendency to wander from the Cape, belonged
to the most adventurous and warlike portion of the population. They had
spread themselves over an enormous tract of country, and were in close
touch with kaffirs and bushmen, cattle-lifters using poisoned arrows.
Living in isolated families, they acquired, in the course of their
unceasing struggle with their savage neighbours, not only their
qualities of daring and warlike skill, but habits of cruelty and cunning
as well.
3.--_Essentially a Man of War and Politics._
Between the Dutchman of Amsterdam, Haarlem, the Hague, or Rotterdam,
installed in his comfortable dwelling, cultivating his tulips, priding
himself upon his pictures, and drinking his beer, and the Boer, pure and
simple, there is not the slightest analogy.
This Dr. Kuyper acknowledges. The Boer population is a compound of
Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Hugenots, Germans and Scotchmen. Krüger and Reitz
are of German, Joubert and Cronje, of French origin. Here is what Dr.
Kuyper, himself, says of the Boers:--
"The word Boer signifies 'peasant,' but it would be a mistake to
compare Boers with French peasants, English farmers, or even the
settlers of America. They are rather a _conquering race_, who
established themselves among the Hottentots and Basutos, in the
same manner that the _Normans, in the XIth Century, established
themselves among the Anglo-Saxons_. Abstaining from all manual
labour, they devote themselves to their properties, sometimes as
much as 5,000 to 6,000 acres in extent, and to the breeding of
cattle and horses. Beyond this, their object in life is hunting
lion and big game. _The Boer is essentially a man of war and
politics._"
Here we have the true Boer, and not the idyllic "small farmer" pictured
to us by a contributor to _Le Temps_. He is essentially the "man of war
and politics," the counterpart of an Arab chief, the sole difference
being that the Boer is not a polygamist and has no tribe under him; on
the contrary, the Boers swarm off in isolated groups or families. Their
conception of life is, however, the same. I quote here from my treatise
on The Evolution of Property (p. 46) on the subject of Pastoral
Tribes:--
"It was at one time the fashion to hold up pastoral tribes and the
patriarchs with their long flowing beards, as subjects of
admiration. Long-bearded patriarchs were objects of veneration.
Despite the quarrels of Esau and Jacob, and the story of Joseph
sold by his brethren, pastoral life was pictured to us as mild as
milk, as innocent as that of sheep in the fold, until Renan pointed
out its qualities and defects. At the same time we were told of the
Bedouins "with saddle, bridle, and life on the Islam," always
mounted, always armed, always engaged in war or razzias and mutual
pillage; of the Turkomans and their motto: 'Thy soul is in thy
sword'; and those who thus celebrated the amenities of pastoral
life, and the heroic adventures of the Arabs of the desert, never
perceived the contradictions they had fallen into."
At the end of that Chapter I spoke of the Boers, according to
Levaillant, "the most carniverous of men," as having turned out of their
possessions the nomadic Hottentot and Kaffir shepherds. _The Boers
represent that form of warlike and political civilisation in which
production is indirect, and obtained by utilising the labour of others._
It is a type of that ancient pillaging civilisation which we call
war-like, when its methods have been reduced to rules. In this stage
politics mean the organisation of pillage. Mr. Kuyper is right. "The
Boer is essentially a man of war and politics." He has employed his
talents at the expense of Hottentots and Kaffirs; he has continued to
employ them to the detriment of the Uitlanders; and he thought the time
had come to realise his programme of February 17th, 1881, formulated by
Dr. Reitz at the end of his official pamphlet,[4] "Africa for the
Africanders from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay." We have seen what view,
according to his apologist, "the man of war and politics" takes of his
relations with the natives; we shall now see how he regards his
relations with the whites.
[Footnote 4: "A Century of Injustice."]