case is the strongest which Her Majesty's Government has been able to
quote against the administration of Justice in this Republic affords the
strongest and most eloquent proof possible that, taking it in general,
the administration of Justice on the gold fields of this Republic not
only compares favourably with that on other and similar gold fields, but
even with that of old and settled countries.
"The untrue representations of this occurrence in the Press prove
conclusively that the newspapers of the Witwatersrand, the
atrocity-mongering tactics of which constitute a share of the organised
campaign against the Republic and its Government, have been compelled to
resort to mendacious criticisms on imaginary instances of
maladministration, which were often simply invented. Where the Press is
forced to adopt such methods, the true grievances must of necessity be
unreal."
[Sidenote: _c._ The Amphitheatre occurence.]
I now give Mr. Chamberlain's accusations about The the Amphitheatre
occurrence:--[47] "Some light upon the extent to which the police can be
trusted to perform their delicate duties with fairness and discretion is
thrown by the events referred to by the petitioners, which took place at
a meeting called by British subjects for the purpose of discussing their
grievances, and held on the 14th of January in the Amphitheatre of
Johannesburg. The Government were previously apprised of the objects of
the meeting, and their assent obtained, though this was not legally
necessary for a meeting in an inclosed place. The organisers of the
meeting state that they were informed by the State Secretary and the
State Attorney that anyone who committed acts of violence or used
seditious language would be held responsible, and in proof of the
peaceful objects of the meeting, those who attended went entirely
unarmed, by which it is understood that they did not even carry sticks.
So little was any disturbance apprehended that ladies were invited to
attend, and did attend. Yet, in the result, sworn affidavits of
witnesses of different nationalities agree in the statement that the
meeting was broken up almost immediately after its opening, and many of
the persons attending it were violently assaulted by organised bands of
hostile demonstrators, acting under the instigation and guidance of
persons in Government employ, without any attempt at interference on the
part of the police, and even in some cases with their assistance or
loudly expressed sympathy.
"The Government of the South African Republic has been asked to
institute an inquiry into these disgraceful proceedings, but the request
has been met with a flat refusal."
This accusation was answered in the following manner:--[48] "The
Amphitheatre occurrence is used by Her Majesty's Government to show how
incapable the police of the Witwatersrand are to fulfil their duties and
to preserve order. The League meeting was held at the so-called
Amphitheatre at Johannesburg, with the knowledge of the State Secretary
and State Attorney, and the accusation is that in spite of that fact the
uproar which arose at that meeting was not quelled by the police. The
following are the true facts:--Mr. Wybergh and another, both in the
service of the South African League, informed the State Secretary and
the State Attorney that they intended to call this meeting in the
Amphitheatre, and asked permission to do so. They were informed that no
permission from the authorities was necessary, and that as long as the
meeting did not give rise to irregularities or disturbances of the
peace, they would be acting entirely within their rights. Their
attention was then drawn to the fact that owing to the action and the
propaganda of the South African League, this body had become extremely
unpopular with a large section of the inhabitants of Johannesburg, and
that in all probability a disturbance of the peace would take place if a
sufficient body of the police were not present to preserve order. To
this these gentlemen answered that the police were in very bad odour
since the Edgar case, that the meeting would be a very quiet one, and
that the presence of the police would contribute or give rise to
disorder, and that they would on those grounds rather have no police at
all.
"The State Secretary and State Attorney thereupon communicated with the
head officials of the police at Johannesburg, with the result that the
latter also thought that it would be better not to have any considerable
number of police at the meeting. The Government accordingly, on the
advice of these officials of the League as well as their own police
officials, gave instructions that the police should remain away from
this meeting; they did this in perfect good faith, and with the object
of letting the League have its say without let or hindrance. The
proposed meeting was, however, advertised far and wide. As the feeling
amongst a section of the Witwatersrand population was exceedingly bitter
against the League, a considerable number of the opponents of that body
also attended the meeting. The few police who were present were
powerless to quell the disorder, and when the police came on the scene
in force some few minutes after the commencement of the uproar, the
meeting was already broken up. Taken by itself, this occurrence would
not be of much importance, as it is an isolated instance as far as the
gold fields of this Republic are concerned, and even in the best
organised and best ordered communities irregularities like the above
occasionally take place.
"The gravity of the matter, however, lies in the unjust accusation of
Her Majesty's Government--that the meeting was broken up by officials of
this Republic, and that the Government had curtly refused to institute
an enquiry.
"This Government would not have refused to investigate the matter if any
complaints had been lodged with it, or at any of the local Courts, and
this has been clearly stated in its reply to Her Majesty's request for
an investigation.
"This Government objects strongly to the systematic way in which 'the
local authorities are ignored, and the continual complaints which are
lodged with the Representatives of Her Majesty about matters which ought
to be decided by the Courts of this Republic. Instead, however, of
complaining to Her Majesty's Government after all other reasonable means
of redress have been vainly invoked, they continually make themselves
guilty of ignoring and treating with contempt the local Courts and
authorities by continually making all sorts of ridiculous and _ex parte_
complaints to Her Majesty's Government in the first instance; Her
Majesty's Government is also thereby placed in the equivocal and
undesirable position of intermeddling in the internal affairs of this
Republic, which is in conflict with the London Convention. Had the
complaints been lodged with this Government, or with the proper
officials or Courts, the facts could have been very easily arrived at,
and it would have been proved that the few officials who were present at
the meeting as a section of the public had done their best to prevent
the irregularities, and that some of them had been hurt in their
endeavours to preserve order. Instead of expressing their disapproval of
such complaints, and referring the petitioners to the local Courts, Her
Majesty's Government accepts those complaints, and gives them an
official character by forwarding them for the information of this
Government, and by publishing them in blue books for the information of
the world.
"Her Majesty's Government will readily acknowledge that there is no
State in the world with any sense of dignity, however weak and
insignificant it may be, which can regard such matters with an
indifferent eye; and when the relations of the two Governments are
strained, then the mainspring must be looked for in this action of its
subjects, which is not disapproved of by Her Majesty's Government, and
not in imaginary or trumped-up grievances."
I have now examined the principal financial and administrative
grievances of the English Uitlanders. I say English Uitlanders
advisedly, because complaints are seldom or ever heard from other
nationalities, either directly or by means of diplomatic
representations.
Can it be contended with the slightest shadow of right and fairness that
these grievances afford a reason for intervention? What crimes have
been committed here against humanity or the law of nations? Do not the
recorded grievances and abuses find a parallel in occurrences which are
taking place every day in the most civilised countries? One can with
perfect justice apply to the present circumstances the language which
the Russian Government used in stigmatising the illegal intervention of
the British Government in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of
Naples[49]:--
"We would understand that, as a consequence of friendly forethought, one
Government should give advice to another in a benevolent spirit; that
such advice might even assume the character of exhortation; but we
believe that to be the furthest limit allowable. Less than ever can it
now be allowed in Europe to forget that sovereigns are equal among
themselves, and that it is not the extent of territory, but the sacred
character of the rights of each, which regulates the relations that
exist between them. To endeavour to obtain from the King of Naples
concessions as regards the internal government of his States by threats,
or by a menacing demonstration, is a violent usurpation of his
authorities, an attempt to govern in his stead; it is an open
declaration of the right of the strong over the weak."
In spite of all its hypocritical accusations, the British Government is
perfectly well aware that, notwithstanding the unparalleled difficulties
with which the Government and the Legislature have had to contend, the
administration of the South African Republic is on a sound basis, and
can, indeed, be favourably compared with that of other countries in a
similar position.
It knows full well that the grievances which are used, by means of blue
books, to stir up and excite the altruistic and humane feelings of the
British public are for the most part imaginary, and that even if they
were perfectly genuine, they nevertheless afford no ground for a
justifiable interference in the internal affairs of the Republic. It is
therefore necessary to have recourse to "Constitutional means" of
another description.
[Sidenote: Equal political rights.]
The third and last "Constitutional" method which Mr. Chamberlain has had
recourse to in order to forcibly intermeddle in the internal affairs of
the South African Republic is the claim of equal rights for all the
white inhabitants of the South African Republic. In this claim he has
also followed the inspiration of Mr. Rhodes, for after the Jameson Raid
Mr. Rhodes was prepared with a new programme for the "progressive
policy" of South Africa, and made use of the formula "Equal rights for
all white people south of the Zambesi." Mr. Rhodes altered this cry
afterwards, with an eye to the coloured vote in the Cape Colony, to
"Equal rights for all civilised persons south of the Zambesi."
In due time the echo resounded from Downing Street "Equal political
rights for all persons in the South African Republic." This formula may
be either desirable or undesirable as a political aspiration in South
Africa. But it is somewhat strange that Mr. Chamberlain should be one of
the leaders of the party in England which has strenuously opposed the
policy of manhood suffrage. In our case, however, Mr. Chamberlain does
not confine himself to friendly advice, but he _demands_ the franchise
for all Uitlanders.
The South African Republic already possesses a franchise law, according
to which every person is entitled to the full franchise after a seven
years' residence in the Republic. But Mr. Chamberlain goes much further,
and claims a far more extensive franchise. On what grounds does he base
his claim?
[Sidenote: The Royal Commission.]
He appeals to the discussions which formed a prelude to the Convention
of 1881. In the discussions, however, mention is only made of burgher
rights or civil rights, with reference to which all possible equality
has continuously existed since the Sand River Convention. To safeguard
the equality of those civil as distinguished from political rights, Art.
12 of the Pretoria Convention provides "all persons (Her Majesty's loyal
subjects) will have full liberty to reside in the country with the
enjoyment, of all civil rights, and protection for their persons and
property."
The period of the franchise was increased in 1882 from one year to five
years, without, however, any protest from Her Majesty's Government, and
in 1884 it was provided in the new Convention of that year in the most
express and clear way possible that:--
(_Art. XIV_.).--All persons, other than natives, conforming
themselves to the laws of the South African Republic (_a_) will
have full liberty with their families, to enter, travel, or
reside in any part of the South African Republic; (_b_), they
will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactories,
warehouses, shops, and premises; (_c_), they may carry on their
commerce either in person or by any agents whom they may think
fit to employ; (_d_), they will not be subject, in respect of
their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or
industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, other than
those which are or may be imposed upon citizens of the said
Republic.
In this way all white Uitlanders were guaranteed in their rights of free
movement, ownership, and possession of property, trade, and commerce,
and equal taxation with the burghers. There is no mention of political
rights, nor has there ever been before this year--1899. The Government
of the South African Republic would be acting strictly in terms of the
Convention if it informed Mr. Chamberlain that it alone has to determine
upon the Franchise, as being a question of a purely internal nature; and
further, that in claiming the right in terms of that Convention to force
the Government to adopt a particular Franchise Law Mr. Chamberlain is
the party who is violating the Convention.
[Sidenote: The Bloemfontein Conference.]
The Government of the South African Republic, however, took up a higher
position; the State President went to Bloemfontein for the purpose of
discussing even internal affairs in a friendly spirit with the High
Commissioner--_inter alia_--the question of the franchise, as he was
actuated by the wish to consolidate and promote the peace of South
Africa. [50] Sir Alfred Milner said there: "If the question could be
settled upon a broad and firm basis, the tension would disappear and
everything come right in time." He has done his best latterly to prove
that he did not say or mean anything of the kind, that the franchise
question was only one of the burning internal matters in which Her
Majesty's Government interested itself, and that a favourable
understanding about the franchise would in no way pave the way to an
agreement as to the other points of difference.
[Sidenote: Sir Alfred Milner's attitude.]
The attitude of Sir Alfred Milner in this and other questions is,
however, of such a nature that it is better to say nothing about his
conduct, but to leave him to the judgment of public opinion and history.
No agreement being possible between the parties, President Kruger left
Bloemfontein and amended the Franchise Law in such a way that the Orange
Free State, the Africanders of Cape Colony, and even Mr. Schreiner,
Premier of the Cape Colony, publicly signified their approval of the
amendments which had been made.
[Sidenote: The joint Commission of Enquiry.]
Mr. Chamberlain now discarded the appearance of friendliness, and began
to adopt a menacing tone in his communications to the Government of the
South African Republic. He proposed that the question as to whether the
new Franchise Law was satisfactory or not should be discussed by a Joint
Commission.
In the meanwhile, owing to informal conversations between the State
Attorney and the British Government, there seemed to be a reasonable
prospect of a speedy and satisfactory settlement.[51] The British
Government, on being sounded by its agent, announced that if a five
years' franchise, unhampered by complicated conditions, and with a
quarter representation for the gold fields, were conceded, it would be
prepared to consider the conditions, upon which the proposal depended,
on their merits, and would not consider such a proposal as a refusal to
accept the Joint Enquiry. The conditions were that (_a_) no further
interference should take place; (_b_), that the claim of suzerainty
should drop; and (_c_) that further disputes should be settled by
Arbitration. As soon, however, as the proposal was formally made the
British Government refused to accept the condition with regard to the
dropping of the suzerainty claim, notwithstanding the fact that the High
Commissioner had declared in an official dispatch that the suzerainty
controversy appeared to him to be etymological and not political.[52]
Shortly afterwards the British Government made what was practically the
same proposal, but _without_ the condition as to the dropping of the
suzerainty claim.
[Sidenote: Bad faith of the British Government.]
As the Government of the South African Republic attached a vital
importance to this condition, in view maintaining its international
status, it refused to accept the proposal in this form; it, however, now
reverted to the invitation for a joint enquiry, which it agreed to
accept, but the British Government replied that it was too late, and
that as a matter of fact it no longer adhered to the invitation.
Here we see in the clearest light--
(1). That, although the High Commissioner had stated that the suzerainty
was only a question of etymological importance, that although the
British Government had never been able to refute the arguments advanced
by the South African Republic as to the abolition of the suzerainty in
1884, the British Government was nevertheless determined not to abandon
its pretension, and is now prepared to make war in South Africa over
this point.
(2). That the British Government invites the South African Republic to a
joint enquiry, and, when this invitation, which had never been
withdrawn, is accepted, the acceptance is refused with every mark of
contempt.
Is there any instance in the history of civilised diplomacy of such
trickery and such callous jugglery with the highest interests of South
Africa?
Can anyone wonder that South Africa has lost all confidence in British
statesmanship?
The British name has been sullied in this part of the world by many
perfidious actions, but of a truth I cannot instance any more despicable
and repellent incidents than those which have marked the course of
events during the last few months.
And the consequence of this trickery will be written with the blood and
the tears of thousands of innocent people.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 33: Dispatches of 12th August, 1896; 21st August, 1896; 17th
February, 1897. C. 8423 and C. 8721.]
[Footnote 34: Dispatches of the 6th March, 1897. C. 8423.]
[Footnote 35: Dispatch, 7th May, 1897. No. 3, C. 8721.]
[Footnote 36: Dispatch, October, 1897. No. 7, C. 8721.]
[Footnote 37: Dispatch, 16th April, 1898. No. 4, C. 9507.]
[Footnote 38: Dispatch. C. 9507. Page 33.]
[Footnote 39: Dispatch, 17th March, 1899. C. 9507.]
[Footnote 40: 17th August, 1899.]
[Footnote 41: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. No. 83, C. 9345.]
[Footnote 42: Dispatch of the Transvaal Government, 26th September,
1899. Appendix C.]
[Footnote 43: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. Blue Book, C. 9345. Page 229.]
[Footnote 44: Dispatch. Appendix C.]
[Footnote 45: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. C. 9345. Page 229.]
[Footnote 46: Appendix C.]
[Footnote 47: Dispatch, 10th May, 1899. Blue Book, C. 9345. Page 229.]
[Footnote 48: Appendix C.]
[Footnote 49: _Life of Prince Consort_, Vol. III., page 510.]
[Footnote 50: Blue Book, C. 9404.]
[Footnote 51: Blue Book, C. 9530.]
[Footnote 52: Blue Book, C. 9507. Page 6.]
CONCLUSION.
I have now reviewed all the facts connected with the history of our
oppression and persecution during the past hundred years. The
allegations I have made are not invented, but are based upon the
statements of the most reliable witnesses, nearly all of them of British
nationality; they are facts that have been declared incontestable before
the tribunal of history. As far as the more recent occurrences since
1898 are concerned, I may state that I have had personal knowledge of
all the negociations and questions at issue above referred to, and I can
only declare that I have confined myself to facts; these will stand out
in a much clearer light when the curtain is raised and the events of the
last two years in this sorely afflicted part of the world are revealed.
In this awful turning point in the history of South Africa, on the eve
of the conflict which threatens to exterminate our people, it behoves us
to speak the truth in what may be, perchance, our last message to the
world. Even if we are exterminated the truth will triumph through us
over our conquerors, and will sterilise and paralyse all their efforts
until they too disappear in the night of oblivion.
Up to the present our people have remained silent; we have been spat
upon by the enemy, slandered, harried, and treated with every possible
mark of disdain and contempt. But our people, with a dignity which
reminds the world of a greater and more painful example of suffering,
have borne in silence the taunts and derision of their opponents;
indeed, they elected out of a sense of duty to remedy the faults and
abuses which had crept into their public administration during moments
of relaxed vigilance. But even this was ascribed to weakness and
cowardice. Latterly our people have been represented by influential
statesmen and on hundreds of platforms in England as incompetent,
uncivilised, dishonourable, untrustworthy, corrupt, bloodthirsty,
treacherous, etc., etc., so that not only the British public, but nearly
the whole world, began to believe that we stood on the same level as the
wild beasts. In the face of these taunts and this provocation our people
still remained silent. We were forced to learn from formal blue books
issued by Her Majesty's Government and from dispatches of Her Majesty's
High Commissioner in South Africa that our unscrupulous State
Government, and our unjust, unprincipled, and disorderly administration,
was a continual festering sore, which, like a pestilential vapour,
defiled the moral and political atmosphere of South Africa. We remained
silent. We were accused in innumerable newspapers of all sorts of
misdeeds against civilisation and humanity; crimes were imputed to us,
the bare narration of which was sufficient to cause the hair to rise
with horror. If the reading public believe a hundredth part of the
enormities which have been laid at the door of our people and
Government, they must be irresistibly forced to the conclusion that this
Republic is a den of thieves and a sink of iniquity, a people, in fact,
the very existence of which is a blot upon humanity, and a nuisance to
mankind. Of the enormous sums which we are alleged to have spent out of
the Secret Service Fund in order to purchase the good opinion of the
world there has been no practical result or evidence, for the breath of
slander went on steadily increasing with the violence of a hurricane.
But our people remained silent, partly out of stupidity, partly out of a
feeling of despairing helplessness, and partly because, being a pastoral
people, they read no newspapers, and were thus unaware of the way in
which the feeling of the whole world was being prejudiced against them
by the efforts of malignant hate.