"I have never seen in the Mansion House a larger or more enthusiastic
meeting, and I believe that the feeling which animates this meeting is
animating the whole country. Any course of action taken by Her Majesty's
Ministers towards the Transvaal will be very closely watched. I myself
am for peace, but I am also for that which maintains peace, viz., a firm
and decided policy."
* * * * *
The poor Chief, Mankoroane, having heard that the Transvaal Delegates
would discuss questions of vital importance to his people, left
Bechuanaland and went as far as Cape Town on his way to England to
represent his case there. Lord Derby, however, sent him word that he
could not be admitted to the Conference in London, where the ownership
of his own country was to be discussed. Mankoroane then begged Mr.
Mackenzie to be his representative, but was again told that neither
personally nor by representative could he be recognised at the
Conference in Downing Street, but that any remarks which Mr. Mackenzie
might make on his behalf would receive the attention of Government.
(Blue Book 3841, 92.)
The first and great question which the Transvaal Delegates desired to
settle in their own interests was that of the Western boundary line,
amended by themselves, which was represented on a map. They were
informed that their amended treaty was "neither in form nor in substance
such as Her Majesty's Government could adopt," there being "certain
Chiefs who had objected, on behalf of their people, to be included in
the Transvaal, and there being a strong feeling in London in favour of
the independence of these natives, or (if they, the natives, desired it)
of their coming under British rule." There was now brought before the
delegates a map showing the addition of land which was eventually
granted to the Transvaal, but the delegates would not agree to any such
arrangement. Her Majesty's Government were giving away to them some
2,600 square miles of native territory, concerning which there was no
clear evidence that its owners wished to be joined to the Transvaal. But
this was nothing to the Transvaal demand, as shown by a map which they
put in, and which included an _additional_ block of 4,000 square miles.
Not finding agreement with the Government possible, the delegates then
turned from that position, and took up the question of the remission of
the debt which the Transvaal owed to England, saying that the wishes of
the native chiefs should be consulted first about the boundary line.
This was a bold stroke; they were professing to be representing the
interests of certain chiefs, which was not the case.
Lord Derby telegraphed to the Cape on the 27th of Feb. 1884, the result
of the protracted labours of the Conference at Downing Street,
mentioning:--"British Protectorate established outside the Transvaal,
with Delegates' consent. Debt reduced to quarter of a million."[17] To
many persons it seems that the Convention of 1884, rather than the
Convention of 1881, was the real blunder. It is remarkable, however, as
illustrating the small attention which South African affairs then
received, that no party controversy was aroused over this later
instrument. Very soon afterwards, however, the question became acute,
owing to the action of Mr. Kruger; and then, it must be remembered, that
Mr. Gladstone did not hesitate to appeal to the armed strength of the
Empire in order to defend British interests and prevent the extension of
Boer rule. That there was not war in 1884 was due only to the fact that
Mr. Kruger at that time did not choose to fight. The raiders and
filibusters were put down before by Sir Charles Warren's force, but Mr.
Gladstone had taken every precaution in view of the contingency of a
collision.
The conditions laid down in the Convention did not satisfy the
Delegates, although they formally assented to them. Their disappointment
began to be strongly manifested. They had stoutly denied that slavery
existed in their country. This denial was challenged by the Secretary
of the Aborigines Protection Society, who brought forward some very
awkward testimonies and facts of recent date. It was suggested that
President Kruger should for ever silence the calumniators by demanding a
Commission of enquiry on this subject which would take evidence within
and round the Transvaal as they might see fit. The Delegates took good
care not to accept this challenge. The firmness of the British
Government at that moment was fully justified by the actual facts of the
case which came so strikingly before them, and their attitude was
supported by public opinion, so far as this public opinion in England
then existed. It was the Transvaal deputation itself which had most
effectually developed it when they first arrived in London, though it
was known they had many friends, and that numbers of the public were
generally quite willing to consider their claims.[18] They sat for three
months in conference with members of Her Majesty's Government before
coming to any decision. That decision was known as the London Convention
of 1884.
The displeasure of the Boer Delegates matured after their return to the
Transvaal, and was expressed in a message sent by the Volksraad to our
Government not many months after the signing of the Convention in
London.
In this document the Boers seem to regard themselves as a victorious
people making terms with those they had conquered. It is interesting to
note the articles of the Convention to which they particularly object.
In the telegram which was sent to "His Excellency, W.E. Gladstone," the
Volksraad stated that the London Convention was not acceptable to them.
They declared that "modifications were desirable, and that certain
articles _must_ be altered." They attached importance to the Native
question, declaring that "the Suzerain (Great Britain) has not the right
to interfere with their Legislature, and that they cannot agree to
article 3, which gives the Suzerain a voice concerning Native affairs,
nor to article 13, by virtue of which Natives are to be allowed to
acquire land, nor to that part of Article 26, by which it is provided
that white men of a foreign race living in the Transvaal shall not be
taxed in excess of the taxes imposed on Transvaal citizens."
It should be observed here that this reference to unequal and excessive
taxation of foreigners in the Transvaal, pointing to a tendency on the
part of the Boers to load foreigners with unjust taxation, was made
before the development of the goldfields and the great influx of
Uitlanders.
The Message of the Volksraad was finally summed up in the following
words: "we object to the following articles, 15, 16, 26, and 27, because
to insist on them is hurtful to our sense of honour." (sic.)
Now what are the articles to which the Boer Government here objects, and
has continued to object?
Article 15 enacts that _no slavery or apprenticeship shall be
tolerated_.
Article 16 provides for religious toleration (for Natives and all
alike.)
Article 26 provides for the free movement, trading, and residence of all
persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the
Transvaal.
Article 27 gives to all, (Natives included,) the right of free access to
the Courts of Justice.
Putting the "sense of honour" of the Transvaal Volksraad out of the
question, past experience had but too plainly proved that these Articles
were by no means superfluous.