V.

VISIT OF TRANSVAAL DELEGATES TO ENGLAND. THE LORD MAYOR'S REFUSAL

TO RECEIVE THEM AT THE MANSION HOUSE. DR. DALE'S LETTER TO MR.

GLADSTONE. MR. MACKENZIE IN ENGLAND. MEETINGS AND RESOLUTIONS ON

TRANSVAAL MATTERS. MANIFESTO OF BOER DELEGATES. SPEECHES OF W.E.

FORSTER, LORD SHAFTESBURY, SIR FOWELL BUXTON, AND OTHERS. THE

LONDON CONVENTION (1884).

In 1883, two years after the retrocession of the Transvaal, the Boers,

encouraged by the hesitating policy of the British Government, sent a

deputation to London of a few of their most astute statesmen, to put

fresh claims before Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Derby, then Colonial

Minister. They did not ask the repeal of the stipulations of the

Convention of 1881--that was hardly necessary, as these stipulations had

neither been observed by them nor enforced by our Government, but what

they desired and asked was the complete re-establishment of the

Republic, freed from any conditions of British Suzerainty. This would

have given them a free hand in dealing with the natives, a power which

those who knew them best were the least willing to concede.

Sir R.N. Fowler was at that time Lord Mayor of London. According to the

custom when any distinguished foreigners visit our Capital, of giving

them a reception at the Mansion House, these Transvaal delegates were

presented for that honour. But the door of the Mansion House was closed

to them, and by a Quaker Lord Mayor, renowned for his hospitality!

The explanation of this unusual act is given in the biography of Sir R.

Fowler, written by J.S. Flynn, (page 260.) The following extract from

that biography was sent to the _Friend_, the organ of the Society of

Friends, in November, 1899, by Dr. Hodgkin, himself a quaker, whose name

is known in the literary world:--"The scene of Sir R. Fowler's travels

in 1881 was South Africa, where he went chiefly for the purpose of

ascertaining how he could best serve the interests of the native

inhabitants. He left no stone unturned in his search for

information--visiting Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of the Cape,

Sir Theophilus Shepstone, Sir Evelyn Wood, Colonel Mitchell, Bishops

Colenso and Macrorie, the Zulu King Cetewayo, the principal statesmen,

the military, the newspaper editors, the workers at the diamond-fields,

and many others. The result of his inquiries was to confirm his belief

of the charges which were made against the Transvaal Boers of wronging

and oppressing the blacks.

"It was the opinion of many philanthropists that the only way to insure

good Government in the Transvaal--justice to the natives, the

suppression of slavery, the security of neighbouring tribes--was by

England's insisting on the Boer's observance of the Treaty which had

been made to this effect, and the delimitation of the boundary of their

territory in order to prevent aggression. With this object in view

meetings were held in the City, petitions presented by Members of

Parliament, resolutions moved in the House; and when at last it was

discovered that Mr. Gladstone's Government was unwilling to fulfil its

pledges in reference to South Africa, and that in consequence the native

inhabitants would not receive the support they had been led to expect,

considerable indignation was felt amongst the friends of the

aborigines. The demand which they made seems to have been moderate. The

Transvaal, which before the war, had been reckoned, for its protection,

a portion of the British dominions, was now made simply a State under

British Suzerainty, with a debt to England of about a quarter of a

million (in lieu of the English outlay during the three years of its

annexation), and a covenant for the protection of the 800,000 natives in

the State, and the Zulu, Bechuana, and Swazi tribes upon its borders.

The English sympathisers with these natives simply asked that the

covenant should be adhered to. There was little chance of the debt being

paid, and that they were willing to forego; but they maintained that

honour and humanity demanded that the Boers should not be allowed to

treat their agreement with us as so much waste paper.

"The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies received

the Transvaal delegates graciously, but the doors of the Mansion House

were shut against them. Its occupant at that time would neither receive

them into his house nor bid them God-speed. He had made a careful study

of the South African question, and he felt no doubt that this deputation

represented a body of European settlers who were depriving the natives

of their land, slaying their men, and enslaving their women and

children. He desired to extend the hospitality of the Mansion House to

visitors from all countries, and to all creeds and political parties;

but the line must be drawn somewhere, and he would draw it at the Boers.

The boldness of his action on this occasion startled some even of his

friends. He was, of course, attacked by that portion of the press which

supported the Government. On the other hand, he had numerous

sympathisers. Approving letters and telegrams came from many quarters,

one telegram coming from the 'Loyalists of Kimberley' with 'hearty

congratulations.' As for his opponents, he was not in the least moved by

anything they said. He held it to be impossible for any respectable

person who knew the Boers to support them. This was no doubt strong

language, but it was not stronger than that of Moffat and Livingstone;

not a whit stronger either than that used by W.E. Forster, who had been

a member of the Gladstonian Government."

Dr. Hodgkin prefaced this extract by the following lines, addressed to

the Editor of the _Friend_:

"Dear Friend,--In re-perusing a few days ago the life of my late

brother-in-law, Sir R.N. Fowler, I came upon the enclosed passage, which

I think worthy of our consideration at the present time.

Of late years the disputes between our Government and the African

Republic have turned so entirely on questions connected with the status

of the settlers in and around Johannesburg, that we may easily forget

the old subjects of dispute which existed for a generation before it was

known that there were any workable goldfields in South Africa, and

before the word "Uitlander" had been mentioned amongst us. I must

confess that for my part I had forgotten this incident of Sir R.N.

Fowler's Mayoralty, and I think it may interest some of your readers to

be reminded of it at the present time. I am, thine truly,--THOMAS

HODGKIN. Barmoor, Northumberland."

* * * * *

The late Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, was one of those whose minds were

painfully exercised on the matter of the abandonment of the natives of

the Transvaal to the Boers. An extract from his life was sent in

February this year to the _Spectator_, with the following preface:--

"Sir,--I have been greatly impressed by the justice of much that has

been said in the _Spectator_ on the fact that the present war is a

retribution for our indifference and apathy in 1881. We failed in our

duty then. We have taken it up now, but at what a cost! In reading

lately the life of Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, I was struck by his remarks

(pp. 438 and 439) on the Convention of Pretoria. These remarks have such

a bearing on the present situation that I beg you will allow me to quote

them:"--

"In relation to South African affairs he (Dr. Dale) felt silence to be

impossible. He had welcomed the policy initiated by the Convention of

Pretoria (1881) conceding independence to the Transvaal, but imposing on

the Imperial Government responsibility for the protection of native

races within and beyond the frontiers. In correspondence with members of

the House of Commons and in more than one public utterance, he expressed

his satisfaction that the freedom of the Boers did not involve the

slavery of the natives. At first the outlook was hopeful, but the Boers

soon began to chafe against the restrictions to which they were

subjected.... The Rev. John Mackenzie brought a lamentable record of

outrage and cruelty.... Dr. Dale particularly urged that the Government

should insist on carrying out the 18th article of the Convention of

Pretoria. 'The policy of the Government seemed to me both righteous and

expedient, singularly courageous and singularly Christian. But that

policy included two distinct elements. It restored to the Boers internal

independence, it reserved to the British Government powers for the

protection of native races on the Transvaal frontier. It is not

unreasonable for those who in the face of great obloquy supported the

Government in recognising the independence of the Transvaal, to ask that

it should also use its treaty powers, and use them effectively for the

protection of the natives.' To this statement the _Pall Mall_ (John

Morley) replied that the suzerainty over the Transvaal maintained by us

was a 'shadowy term,' and that those who demanded that our reserved

rights should be enforced were bound to face the question whether they

were willing to fight to enforce them. Was Dr. Dale ready to run the

risk of a fresh war in South Africa? Dr. Dale replied, should the

British Government and British people regard with indifference the

outrages of the Boers against tribes that we had undertaken to

protect?... 'If the Government of the Republic cannot prevent such

crimes as are declared to have been committed in the Bechuana country,

and if we are indifferent to them, we shall have the South African

tribes in a blaze again before many years are over, and for the safety

of our Colonists we shall be compelled to interfere.' In the ensuing

Session the Ministerial policy was challenged in both Houses of

Parliament, and in the Commons Mr. Forster indicted the Government for

its impotence to hold the Transvaal Republic to its engagements. Dr.

Dale wrote a long letter to Mr. Gladstone:--'If it had been said that

power to protect the natives should be taken but not used, it is at

least possible that a section of the party might have declined to

approve the Ministerial policy.... The one point to which I venture to

direct attention is the contrast, as it appears to me, between the

declaration of Ministers in '81, in relation to the native races

generally, and the position which has been taken in the present debate.'

Mr. Gladstone's reply was courteous, but not reassuring."

* * * * *

Mr. Mackenzie, British Commissioner for Bechuanaland, came to England in

1882. In the following year the Delegates from the Transvaal came to

London, and in 1884 the Convention was signed, which was called the

"London Convention."

These years included events of great interest. Mr. Mackenzie

wrote:--"On my way to England I met a friend who had just landed in

South Africa from England. He warned me 'If you say a good word for

South Africa, Mr. Mackenzie, you will get yourself insulted. They will

not hear a word on its behalf in England; they are so disgusted with the

mess that has been made.'

'They had good reason to be disgusted, but I want all the same to tell

them a number of things about the true condition of the country.'

'They will not listen,' my friend declared, 'They will only swear at

you.' This was not very encouraging, but it was not far from the truth

as to the public feeling at that time.

Being in the----counties of England I was offered an introduction to the

Editor of a well-known newspaper, who was also a pungent writer on

social questions under a _nom de plume_ which had got to be so well

known as no longer to serve the purpose of the writer's concealment of

identity.

'You come from South Africa, do you,' said the great man; 'a place where

we have had much trouble, but mean to have no more.'

'Trouble, however,' I answered, 'is inseparable from Empire. Whoever

governs South Africa must meet with some trouble and difficulty,

although not much when honestly faced.'

'I assure you,' he broke in, 'we are not going to try it again after the

one fashion or the other. We are out of it, and we mean to remain so.'

'You astonish me,' I answered; 'what about the Convention recently

signed at Pretoria (1881)? What about the speeches still more recently

made in this country in support of it?'

'As to the Convention, I know we signed something; people often do when

they are getting out of a nasty business. We never meant to keep it, nor

shall we.'

I believe I whistled a low whistle just to let off the steam, and then

replied calmly, 'Will you allow me to say that by your own showing you

are a bad lot, a very bad lot, as politicians.'

'That may be, but it does not alter the fact, which is as I state.'

'Well, I am an outsider, but I assure you that the English people,

should they ever know the facts, will agree with me in saying that you

are a bad lot. Such doctrines in commerce would ruin us in a day. You

know that.'

'The people are with us. They are disgusted and heart-sore with the

whole business.'

'I grant you that such is their frame of mind, but I think their

attitude will be different when they come to consider the facts, and

face the responsibilities of our position in South Africa. The only

difficulty with me is to communicate the truth to the public mind.'

I was much impressed by this interview. Did this influential editor

represent a large number of English people? Were they in their own minds

out of South Africa, and resolved never to return?

... 'I do not know what you think, Mr. Mackenzie, but we are all saying

here that Mr. Gladstone made a great mistake in not recalling Sir Bartle

Frere at once. In fact, we are of opinion that Frere should have been

tried and hanged.'

The speaker was a fine specimen of an Englishman, tall, with a good

head, intelligent and able as well as strong in speech. He was a large

manufacturer, and a local magnate. His wife was little and gentle, and

yet quite fearless of her grim-looking lord. She begged that I would

always make a deduction when her husband referred to South Africa. He

could never keep his temper on that subject, My host abruptly demanded,

'But don't you think that Frere should have been hanged?'

'My dear, you will frighten Mr. Mackenzie with your vehemence, and you

know you do not mean it a bit.'

'Mean it! Isn't it what everybody is saying here? At any rate I have

given Mr. Mackenzie a text, and he must now give me his discourse.'

I then proceeded to sketch out the work which Sir Bartle Frere had had

before him, its fatal element of haste, with its calamitous failures in

no way chargeable to him. 'In short, I concluded, but for the grave

blunders of others you would have canonized Sir Bartle Frere instead of

speaking of him as you do. He is the ablest man you ever sent to South

Africa. As to his personal character, I do not know a finer or manlier

Christian.' ...

'I am quite bewildered,' said my host, at the end of a long

conversation. 'I know more of South Africa than I knew before. But we

shall not believe you unless you pitch into someone. You have not done

that yet; you have only explained past history, and have had a good word

for everybody.'

'Then, Sir,' I quickly answered, 'I pitch into you, and into your

Governments, one after another, for not mastering the facts of South

African life. Why do you now refuse to protect your own highway into the

Interior, and at the same time conserve the work of the missionaries

whom you have supported for two generations, and thus put an end to the

freebooting of the Boers, and of our own people who joined them? At

present there is a disarmed coloured population, disarmed by your own

laws on account only of their colour; and there is an armed population,

armed under your laws, because they are white; and you decline to

interfere in any way for the protection of the former. You will neither

protect the natives nor give them fair play and an open field, so that

they may protect themselves.'

'Now, my dear,' said the little wife, 'I wonder who deserves to be

hanged now? I am sure we are obliged to Mr. Mackenzie for giving us a

clear view of things.'

'No, no, you are always too hasty,' said my host, quite gravely. 'The

thing gets very serious. Do I rightly understand you, Mr. Mackenzie,

that practically we Englishmen arm those freebooters (from the

Transvaal,) and practically keep the blacks disarmed, and that when the

blacks have called on us for protection and have offered themselves and

their country to the Queen we have paid no heed? Is this true?'

'Every word true,' I replied.

'Then may I ask, did you not fight for these people? You had surely got

a rifle,' said my host, turning right round on me.

'My dear, you forget Mr. Mackenzie has been a Missionary,' said his

wife. 'You yourself, as a Director of the London Missionary Society,

would have had him cashiered if he had done anything of the kind.'

'Nonsense, you don't see the thing. I assure you I could not have

endured such meanness and injustice. I should have broken such

confounded laws. I should have shouldered a rifle, I know,' said the

indignant man as he paced his room.

'My dear, you would have got shot, you know,' said his wife.

'Shot! yes, certainty, why not?' said my host; and added gravely, 'A

fellow would know _why_ he was shot. Is it true, Mr. Mackenzie, that

those blacks were kind to our people who fled to them from the

Transvaal, and that they there protected them?'

'Quite true,' I rejoined.

'Then by heaven,' said Mr.----, raising his voice--

'Let us go to supper,' broke in the gentle wife, 'you are only wearying

Mr. Mackenzie by your constant wishes to hang some one.'

"I trust my friends will forgive me for recalling this conversation,

which vividly pictures the state of people's mind concerning South

Africa in 1882. I found that most people were incredulous as to the

facts being known at the Colonial Office, and there was a uniform

persuasion that Mr. Gladstone was ignorant that such things were going

on."

I have given these interviews (much abridged) because they illustrate in

a rather humourous way a state of mind which unhappily has long existed

and exists to some degree to this day in England--an impatience of

responsibility for anything concerning interests lying beyond the shores

of our own Island, a certain superciliousness, and a habit of expressing

and adhering to suddenly formed and violent opinions without sufficient

study of the matters in question,--such opinions being often influenced

by the bias of party politics. Our countrymen are now waking up to a

graver and deeper consideration of the tremendous interests at stake in

our Colonies and Dependencies, and to a greater readiness to accept

responsibilities which once undertaken it is cowardice to reject or even

to complain of.

At the request of the London Missionary Society, Mr. Mackenzie drew up

an extended account of the Bechuanaland question, which had a wide

circulation. He did not enter into party politics, but merely gave

evidence as to matters of fact. There was surprise and indignation

expressed wherever the matter was carefully studied and understood. Many

resolutions were transmitted to the Colonial Secretary from public

meetings; one which came from a meeting in the Town Hall of Birmingham

was as, follows:--

"This meeting earnestly trusts that the British Government will firmly

discharge the responsibilities which they have undertaken in protection

of the native races on the Transvaal border."

Among the people who took up warmly the cause of the South African

natives were Dr. Conder, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Yates of Leeds (who

addressed themselves directly to Mr. Gladstone), Dr. Campbell and Dr.

Duff of Edinburgh, the Rev. Arnold Thomas and Mr. Chorlton of Bristol,

Mr. Howard of Ashton-under-Lyne, Mr. Thomas Rigby of Chester, and

others.

A Resolution was sent to the Colonial Office by the Secretary of the

Congregational Union of England and Wales, which had been passed

unanimously at a meeting of that body in Bristol:--

"That the Assembly of the Congregational Union, recognising with devout

thankfulness the precious and substantial results of the labours of two

generations of Congregational Christian Missionaries in Bechuanaland,

learns with grief and alarm that the lawless incursions of certain Boers

from the Transvaal threaten the utter ruin of peace, civilization, and

Christianity in that land. This Assembly therefore respectfully and most

urgently entreats Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with the

express provision of the Convention by which Self-Government was granted

to the Boers, to take such steps as shall eventually put a stop to a

state of things as inconsistent with the pledged word of England as with

the progress of the Bechuanaland nations." Signed at Bristol, Oct. 1882.

"These," says Mr. Mackenzie, "were not words of war, but of peace; they

were not the words of enemies, but of friends of the Transvaal, many of

whom had been prominent previously in agitating for the Boers getting

back their independence. They felt that this was the just complement of

that action; the Boers were to have freedom within the Transvaal, but

not licence to turn Bechuanaland (and other neighbouring native states)

into a pandemonium."

There was a closer contact in Edinburgh with South Africa than

elsewhere, owing to the constant presence at that University of a large

number of students from South Africa. A public meeting was held in

Edinburgh, among the speakers whereat were Bishop Cotterill, who had

lived many years in South Africa; Mr. Gifford, who had been a long time

in Natal; Professor Calderwood, and Dr. Blaikie, biographer of Dr.

Livingstone. The Venerable Mr. Cullen, the first missionary traveller in

Bechuanaland, who had often entertained Dr. Moffat and Dr. Livingstone

in his house, was present to express his interest in that country. There

were the kindest expressions used towards our Dutch fellow-subjects; but

grave condemnation was expressed of the Transvaal policy towards the

coloured people in making it a fundamental law that they were not to be

equal to the whites either in Church or State.

A South African Committee was formed in London from which a largely

supported address was presented to Mr. Gladstone.

The High Commissioner for Bechuanaland gave his impressions at several

different times during that and the preceding year on the subject of the

constant illegal passing of the Western Boundary line of the Transvaal

by the Boers. Readers will remember that the delimitation of the western

boundary of the Transvaal was a fixed condition of the Convention of

1881, a Convention which was continually violated by the Boers. No rest

was permitted for the poor natives of the different tribes on that side,

the Boers' land-hunger continuing to be one of their strongest passions.

The High Commissioner wrote, "If Montsioa and Mankoroane were now

absorbed, Banokwani, Makobi and Bareki would soon share the same fate.

Haseitsiwe and Sechele would come next. So long as there were native

cattle to be stolen and native lands to be taken possession of, the

absorbing process would be repeated. Tribe after tribe would be pushed

back and back upon other tribes or would perish in the process until an

uninhabitable desert or the sea were reached as the ultimate boundary of

the Transvaal State."[16]

The Manifesto presented by the Transvaal delegates to the English people

convinced no one, and its tone was calculated rather to beget suspicion.

The following is an extract from that document:

"The horrible misdeeds committed by Spain in America, by the Dutch in

the Indian Archipelago, by England in India, and by the Southern

planters in the United States, constitute an humiliating portion of the

history of mankind, over which we as Christians may well blush,

confessing with a contrite heart our common guiltiness."

"The labours of the Anti-slavery and Protection of Aborigines Societies

which have been the means of arousing the public conscience to the high

importance of this matter cannot be, according to our opinion,

sufficiently lauded and encouraged."

The manifesto then goes on to meet the charges concerning slavery and

ill-treatment of natives brought against the Transvaal by a flat denial.

"They may be true," they say, "as to actions done long ago, and they

humbly pray to the Lord God to forgive them the sins that may have been

committed in hidden corners. Believe us, therefore, Gentlemen, when we

say that the opposition to our Government is caused by prejudice, and

fed by misunderstanding. If you leave us untrammelled, we hope to God

that before a new generation has passed, a considerable portion of our

natives in the Transvaal will be converted to Christianity; at least our

Government is preparing arrangements for a more thorough Christian

mission among them."

A public Meeting was held at the Mansion House, called by the Lord

Mayor, Sir R. Fowler, at which the Right Hon. W.E. Forster, referring to

the Sand River and the other Conventions said: "can anything be more

grossly unfair and unjust than on the one hand, to hand over these

native people to the Transvaal Government, and on the other hand to do

our utmost to prevent them from defending themselves when their rights

are attacked? I cannot conceive any provision more contrary to that

principle of which we are so proud--British fair play."

Speaking of the treatment of the Bechuanaland people by the Boers he

said: "The story of these men is a very sad one; I would rather never

allude to it again." He then referred to "the settlement of the western

boundary of the Transvaal by Governor Keate, and the immediate

repudiation of it by the Transvaal Rulers. Then came the Pretoria

Convention only two years ago which added a large block of native land

to the Transvaal. That was not enough. Freebooters came over, mostly

from the Transvaal, and afterwards from other parts of the country.

Representations and remonstrances were made to the Transvaal Government.

There was a non possumus reply. 'We cannot stop them;' We seem to have

good ground for believing that the freebooters were stimulated by the

officers of the Transvaal Government. The result was that the native

Chiefs of the people lost by far the larger portion of their land. They

appealed to our Government, and we did nothing; there came again and

again despairing appeals to England, and how were they met? I can only

believe it was through ignorance of the question that it was possible to

meet them as we did. It was proposed to meet them by a miserable

compensation in money or in land, not to the people but to the few

Chiefs, who to their credit, as a lesson to us, a great Christian

Country said: 'We will not desert our people even if you desert us.'

Then there followed utter disorder and disorganisation in Bechuanaland.

Then came in the Transvaal Government and virtually said: 'Give us the

country and we will maintain order; if owners of the land object we will

put them down as rebels; we will take their land as we have taken

Mapoch's, and apprentice their children. You have got tired of these

quarrels, leave them to us; we will put a stop to them by protecting the

robbers who have taken the land.'

"That practically is the demand. Are you prepared to grant it? I for my

part say, that rather than grant it I would (a voice in the

meeting--'fight!') yes, if necessary, fight; but I will do my utmost to

persuade my fellow countrymen to make the declaration that, if

necessary, force will be used, which, if it was believed in, would make

it unnecessary to fight.

"The Transvaal Boers know our power, and the Delegates know our power.

It is our will that they doubt. If I could not persuade my fellow

countrymen that they meant to show that they would never grant such

demands as these, I would rather do--what I should otherwise oppose with

all my might,--withdraw from South Africa altogether. I am not so proud

of our extended Empire as to wish to preserve it at the cost of England

refusing to discharge her duties. If we have obligations we must meet

them, and if we have duties we must fulfil them; and I have confidence

in the English people that first or last they will make our Government

fulfil its obligations. But there is much difference between first and

last; last is much more difficult than first, and more costly than

first. The cost increases with more than geometrical progression. There

are people who say, (but the British nation will not say it;) 'leave us

alone, let these Colonists and Boers and Natives whom we are tired of,

fight it out as best they can; let us declare by our deeds, or rather by

our non deeds that we will not keep our promise nor fulfil our duty.'

Such a course as that would be as extravagantly costly as it would be

shamefully wrong. This _laissez faire_ policy tends to make things go

from bad to worse until at last by a great and most costly effort, and

perhaps by a really bloody and destructive war, we shall be obliged to

do in the end at a greater cost, and in a worse way, that which we could

do now. It is not impossible to do it now. A gentleman in the meeting

said it was a question of fighting. I do not believe this; but though

born a Quaker, I must admit that if there be no other way by which we

can protect our allies and prevent the ungrateful desertion of those who

helped us in the time of need, than by the exercise of force, I say

force must be exercised."

Readers will remark how extraordinarily prophetic are these words of Mr.

Forster, spoken in 1883.

The "venerable and beloved Lord Shaftesbury," as Mr. Mackenzie calls

him, spoke as follows:--

"This morning has been put into my hands the reply of the Transvaal

delegates to the Aborigines Protection Society. I read it with a certain

amount of astonishment and of comfort too,--of astonishment that men

should be found possessing such a depth of Christianity, such sentiments

of religion, such love for veracity, and such regard for the human race

as to put on record and to sign with their own hands such a denial of

the atrocities and cruelties which have been recorded against them for

so many years. It is most blessed to contemplate the depth of their

religious sentiments; they express the love they bear to our Lord and

Saviour, and their desire to walk in His steps. All this is very

beautiful, and, _if true_, is the greatest comfort ever given us

concerning the native races. I will take that document as a promise for

the future that they will act upon these principles, that they are

Christians, and that they will act on Christian principles, and respect

the rights of the natives. That is perhaps the most generous view to

take of the matter; but, nevertheless, we shall be inclined to doubt

until we _see_ that they have put these principles into practice.

"Let me come to the laws of the Transvaal. It is a fundamental law of

that State that there can be no equality either in Church or in State

between white and coloured men. No native is allowed to hold land in the

Transvaal with such a fundamental law. It is nothing more than a

necessary transition to the conclusion that the coloured people should

be contemned as being of an inferior order, and only fit for slavery.

That is a necessary transition, and it is for Englishmen to protest

against it, and to say that all men, of whatever creed, or race, or

colour, are equal in Church and State, and in the sight of God, and to

assert the principle of Civil and Religious Liberty whenever they have

the opportunity. I have my fears at times of the consequences of

democratic action; but I shall never feel afraid of appealing to the

British democracy on a question of Civil and Religious liberty. That

strikes a chord that is very deep and dear to every Briton everywhere.

They believe,--and their history shows that they act upon the

belief,--that the greatest blessing here below that can be given to

intellectual and moral beings is the gift of Civil and Religious

liberty. Sensible of the responsibility we have assumed, we appeal to

the British public, and I have no doubt what the answer will be. It will

be that by God's blessing, and so far as in us lies, Civil and Religious

liberty _shall_ prevail among all the tribes of South Africa, to the end

that they may become civilized nations, vying with us in the exercise of

the gifts that God has bestowed upon us."

Sir Henry Barkly, who had held the office of Governor of the Cape

Colony, and of High Commissioner for a number of years, said:--

"Apart from other considerations, it is essential in the interests of

civilization and of commerce that the route to the interior of the Dark

Continent should be kept in our hands. It has been through the stations

planted by our missionaries all along it, as far as Matabeleland, that

the influence of the Gospel has been spread among the natives, and that

the way has been made safe and easy for the traveller and the trader.

Can we suppose that these stations can be maintained if we suffer the

road to fall within the limits of the Transvaal? We need not recall our

melancholy experience of the past in this region. I would rather refer

to the case of the Paris Evangelical Society, whose missionaries were

refused leave only a short time ago to teach or preach to the

Basuto-speaking population within the Transvaal territory."