--

* Mr. Dube was here referring to an open letter which he sent

to the `Natal Press', explaining the hard lot of the Native victims

of the Act, and appealing to the colonists to intercede

with the South African Government on behalf of the sufferers.

--

In regard to the concluding paragraph of your letter to the effect

that the only result of the Chief Native Commissioner's request

was the submission of the case of a Native in the Weenen County

who received notice from his landlord over a year ago,

you must be misinformed. As you will see from the list,

scores of names were furnished to the Native Commissioner, and furthermore,

some of the individuals themselves who were suffering hardship

were sent by me to the Chief Commissioner and were interviewed by him.

The trouble has been that the Chief Commissioner, instead of dealing

with these individual cases himself, has, I am informed, in many instances,

sent the individuals on to the Magistrates, and my letters also

have been forwarded to the Magistrates, with the request that Magistrates

would go into the matter. However anxious the Magistrates may be

to help in this matter they are but human, and in many cases,

I am informed, they are overweighed with other work and have been unable

to give the attention to these matters that they required.

Moreover the Magistrate acts purely as an official, and the Native

who is wandering about the country helpless does not get

the immediate sympathy and attention which his case deserves and demands.

In many cases the individuals I sent on are under the impression,

rightly or wrongly, that nothing is being done for their relief.

If I might make a suggestion, it would be that some independent gentleman

should be appointed to investigate these cases -- some gentleman

who would have sufficient time to devote to the investigation

of the various instances of hardship that would come before him,

and who would be empowered to do what was necessary to relieve the deserving.

I may say further that since the introduction of the Squatters Bill

during the 1912 session of Parliament eviction by farmers has been

much increased, possibly in view of the impression that prevailed generally

among the farming community that the Squatters Bill or some similar measure

was to be re-introduced by the Government, the result being that those Natives

who had been evicted by farmers now the Natives' Land Bill has become law,

are prevented from entering into agreements with land owners

as rent-paying tenants, and only under servile conditions, with the result

that in many cases they become wandering and helpless vagrants.

Another form of hardship which prevails very generally

as the result of the Natives' Land Act is this: The younger Natives

do not receive the wage from farmers as can be easily earned,

say, on the Rand mines, with the result that the younger men

leave their homes and their fathers and proceed to the mines;

the father is unable to supply the labour demanded by the landlord

owing to the absence of his sons, and as a result he is evicted --

many cases of this sort can be cited.

I may here cite two cases within my personal knowledge:

(1) Bhulose was living on Mr. R. Miller's farm, "Dalmeny",

near Phoenix. He was evicted with his wife and family in June last.

He is seeking a place now to reside on, but cannot obtain one.

(2) A native woman Vatplank, a widow with a family, was evicted

from the property of a farmer, Mr. Adendorff, near Newcastle; this woman

with all her household goods and her family had to camp out on the veld.

She was barred by the Act from going to neighbouring farmers for a residence.

I have done my utmost to give you concrete examples and names of persons

suffering hardship. If I can supplement the information

contained in this letter and in the accompanying list I shall only be

too happy to do so.

Might I suggest further that you should ask the Chief Native Commissioner

to forward to you all my correspondence with him on this matter?

This will show you and the Government that the statements contained

in my open letter are not mere fabrications, but are based upon solid facts.

John L. Dube.

==

Mr. Dube's list includes evictions from the districts of Greytown,

New Hanover, Ekukanyeni, Homeless (a very appropriate name

in the circumstances), Howick, Estcourt, and Mid-Illovu.

Here is a specimen of notice: --

==

I hereby give you Mandwasi notice to leave my farm Blinkwater

by the end of July, 1913.

(Sgd.)

July 20, 1913. Freestone Ridge.

==

"The wheels of administration moved slowly" (to borrow an official phrase)

between the Native Affairs Department and the other departments of State.

Thus, while the authorities were temporizing with this

and similar representations, the Natives' Land Act was scattering the Natives

about the country, creating alarm and panic in different places.

The high officials of State, instead of relieving the distress thus caused,

were interviewing Natives and urging them not to send a deputation to Europe.

The Natives received this advice hopefully. They believed

it was an indication that the Government was about to amend the law,

in which case, of course, the deputation would be unnecessary;

but, besides this advice, the officials in each instance promised no relief.

The Natal Native Commissioner held a similar meeting with a number of Zulus.

The meeting asked for some relief for the evicted tenants

who were roaming about the country, but the official significantly

evaded the point. The disappointment of the meeting, created by

his evasive replies, having overcome the proverbial native timidity

when in the presence of authority, resulted in one petty chief

saying to the Commissioner: "Local authorities levy a tax every year

on each of our dogs. We don't know what they do with the money.

You have never complained against that waste, so why should you complain

if our money is spent in sending a deputation to the King?" The answer,

if there was one, is not reported.

General Botha, until then, never met native tax-payers

to discuss their grievances with them. But in the latter part of 1913,

he actually met some Natives in the Eastern Transvaal, who desired

to inform him of the ravages of the Act. But instead of holding out any hope

that an asylum would be found for the wanderers, he proceeded

to advise them against sending a deputation to England. The Natives

having given specific instances of the plight of certain evicted tenants

in the neighbourhood, asked for an abode for them, but on that point

the Premier would not be drawn. The Government's indifference

to native sufferings being thus revealed, the Natives of Vryheid

became more eager to help to organize the proposed deputation.

General Botha's efforts against the deputation, without offering any homes

to the evicted Natives, was probably the best stimulus

towards the deputation fund. The Premier visited a northern tribe

some time after and was said to have warned the chief and his people

against the pretensions of the Native Congress. When Mr. Dube called there

a few days later, they handed him 200 Pounds towards the deputation fund,

which they had collected since General Botha's visit. Mr. Saul Msane

similarly raised 360 Pounds for the fund in the Eastern Transvaal

where the Premier first warned the Natives against the deputation

without offering them any relief.

Those Natives who were not immediately affected by the Act

were rather lukewarm regarding the proposed deputation.

But when the officials warned them against wasting their money on a deputation

and told them in the next breath that it was a breach of the law

to find an abode for the evicted wanderers, these Natives,

perceiving the hollowness of the Government's advice,

determined that as a last resort a deputation should be sent to England.

Chapter XV The Kimberley Congress / The Kimberley Conference

Sorrow like this draws parted lives in one, and knits anew the rents

which time has made.

Lewis Morris.

When everything was ready another special Congress was called

to meet at Johannesburg in February, to carry out the deputation's scheme

and appoint the delegates to proceed to England. In view of

the dissatisfaction of the Government after the July Congress,

the author considered it his duty to inform the Government

that a meeting was about to take place. This information

called forth a peremptory intimation from the Government

that because of the recent strike of white men (from which the Natives

had publicly disassociated themselves) the Native Congress could not be held.

But at the time that this telegraphic prohibition reached us

General Smuts, Minister of Defence, was announcing in Parliament that

the embargo on public meetings, in areas where, owing to the recent strike

(of January, 1914), martial law was proclaimed, had been removed.

Logically then General Botha's decision made the previous day

in regard to the Congress meeting fell to the ground; and so we telegraphed

to Senator Schreiner and Dr. Watkins, members of Parliament,

to ascertain if this was so. Both these gentlemen answered

that in spite of the removal of the prohibition of public meetings of whites,

the Prime Minister directs that the one in regard to the "Native Congress"

must stand. Thereupon the writer, after consulting a few native residents

in Kimberley, intimated to the executive of the Congress that:

==

Kimberley, my home, is not yet a Republic in its sentiments.

There we have not reached the stage where some one's permission

must be asked before a meeting can be held. So we invite the Congress

to hospitable and British Kimberley, where public meetings close

with singing the British National Anthem and not with singing

the "Volkslied" or the "Red Flag", as is the case in meetings

at some other South African centres.

==

After the notices were out the Government sent an intimation to the effect

that the Congress was not actually prohibited. That it was only deemed

undesirable to allow it to be held at Johannesburg, where a strike

had taken place; and that even there the Government no longer objected,

provided it be held indoors. But this belated reconsideration was unnecessary

as the Kimberley preparations were far advanced and some of the delegates

were already on their way to Kimberley.

The Congress was opened in St. John's Hall at 10 a.m. on

Friday morning, February 27, 1914, by the Rt. Rev. W. Gore-Browne,

Bishop of Kimberley and Kuruman. His lordship was accompanied

by Archdeacon de Rougemont and Rev. I. I. Hlangwana of St. Paul's Mission,

who gave out the native hymns. In the absence of the president,

who reached Kimberley in the afternoon of that day, the Bishop

was received by Mr. Makgatho, vice-president of the Congress.

After the religious exercise had ended, the Bishop counselled the Congress

not to ask for a repeal of the whole Act, but only for relief

from the oppressive clauses, and then to wait for the Commission's report

in regard to the remainder of the Act. "There may be something good in it,"

added the Bishop, "as the glittering diamonds of Kimberley are found

in blue clay."

Mr. Makgatho, in thanking the Bishop for opening the Congress, thanked him

for the allegory, but added, however, that he had never heard of a father

who said to his child, "You are hungry, my son, and I am going

to prepare some dinner for you, but meanwhile you had better wait outside

in the rain." After the Bishop gave the Congress his benediction,

Prince Malunge-Ka-Mban-deni of Swaziland was introduced to him,

as were the Chiefs Molotlegi and Mamogale of Transvaal,

Moiloa of the Bahurutshe, and Messrs. Elka M. Cele of Natal,

Meshach Pelem from the Cape, J. M. Nyokong, S. Litheko of the O.F.S.,

and other native leaders.

In the evening a large public reception was held in the City Hall

in honour of the delegates. Kimberley joined wholeheartedly in the function.

De Beers Company, which had hitherto shown the greatest hospitality

only to European assemblies and not to native conferences and organizations,

acted otherwise in the case of this Congress and its requirements.

Presumably Mr. Pickering, the secretary of De Beers, had had information

that even the mining labourers in the enclosed mining compounds were

heart and soul with their countrymen outside; and so the Company's hospitality

was extended to the native delegates.

Bioscope films were projected by Mr. I. Joshua, the chairman of the A.P.O.,

Messrs. Lakey and September, other A.P.O. committee men, acting as

masters of ceremonies. The coloured people attended in their hundreds,

and cheered the musicians of their native brethren who entertained the people

who thronged the City Hall till many were refused admission.

The Coloured People's Organization sent a speaker, Mr. H. Van Rooyen,

to welcome the delegates on behalf of the African Political Organization.

The president of their Ladies' Guild, Mrs. Van der Riet,

a school teacher and musician of long standing, attended and played

the accompaniment for the Greenport Choir on the pianoforte;

Miss M. Ntsiko, who had borne the brunt of the evening's accompaniment,

was thus relieved.

Mr. Joseph Kokozela, on behalf of the Kimberley and Beaconsfield

branches of the Congress, welcomed the Congress to Kimberley,

and presented Mr. Dube, the president, with an address,

which was beautifully illuminated by the Sisters of St. Joseph Convent,

of Mafeking. Mr. H. Van Rooyen associated his people with the Natives

in their present struggle for existence, and Dr. J. E. Mackenzie,

who spoke on behalf of the Europeans, made a fine speech.

He said that nobility was not confined to any particular race or colour;

that men with black skins have been known to be just as noble

as men with white skins. Amongst other questions he asked,

"What could be more noble than the Bedford boy leader who subsequently became

the St. Augustine of Central Africa, or what could be more noble

than the action of the two servants of Dr. Livingstone, who carried his body,

for hundreds of miles, through difficult forests, to the coast,

and thus ensured his burial in Westminster Abbey?"

Dr. Mackenzie's speech was afterwards referred to by several native delegates

to the Congress. They said that before they came to Kimberley

they felt certain that English ideas were utterly obliterated

in the Union of South Africa, and that English sentiments

were things of the past; but that Dr. Mackenzie's speech had given them

fresh hope, as it was like cold water to a traveller in the desert.

It was, they said further, like a dream to hear a white man talk like that

in a mixed audience.

The Congress received sympathetic telegrams from such

old residents of Kimberley as Sir David Harris and Dr. Watkins.

Both these gentlemen telegraphed their felicitations from Parliament.

Mr. H. A. Oliver, member for Kimberley, a great Wesleyan

and Sunday School leader, who was at Capetown for the Parliamentary session,

instructed his manager at Kimberley to book seats on his account

for the senior classes of the Newton Wesleyan Sunday School

to attend the Congress entertainment.

The Resident Magistrate of Kimberley telephoned to us on this same day

that he had received the following telegram from the Secretary

for Native Affairs: --

"LEAVING TO-NIGHT FOR KIMBERLEY TO ATTEND THE NATIVE CONGRESS.

INFORM PLAATJE."

It had never previously happened that a representative of the Government

attended a coloured political assembly, and it was felt

that wiser councils had prevailed with the Government,

and that as a result it had decided to meet the Natives, at least half-way.

If gambling was one of the indulgences of the Natives,

some at least of the delegates would have wagered that Mr. Dower

was conveying a concession to the Native Congress, by which

it would be unnecessary for the latter to send a deputation to England.

So thoroughly was the idea of a concession associated

in the mind of the Congress with the approaching visit of Mr. Dower

that it postponed the election of delegates for the mission to England.

This anticipation was a reasonable one as the Union's recent legislation

was in the melting-pot.

The law against British Indians, passed at the same time

as the Natives' Land Act, was just then recommended for modification,

under pressure brought to bear upon the Imperial Government

by the Government of India and other agencies. Again, the Labour members

were creating difficulties both at Capetown and Westminster

over General Smuts's Deportation Bill, which compelled the Government

to amend its conditional banishment clause -- a hardship that was not

as vital or as absolute as the banishment clauses against black tenants

in the Natives' Land Act. Consequently, the native delegates to Congress,

representing as they did an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants

of South Africa -- a section that had received nothing but violent legislation

from the South African Parliament since the inauguration of Union --

had every reason to expect that, for the first time,

a Government emissary was carrying an olive branch to the Natives;

but, alas! unlike the industrial strikers, the Natives had no votes

to create a constitutional difficulty; unlike the British Indians, they have

no Indian Government at their back; therefore, their vital interests,

being negligible, could comfortably be relegated to the regions of oblivion,

and this hope, like all its predecessors, was falsified.

Mr. Dower attended the Congress on Saturday, February 28,

and again on Monday, March 2, and made speeches.

He was profuse in expressions of the gratitude of the Government

to the Natives, their leaders and their chiefs, for the loyal co-operation

they have always rendered the authorities, and he came to ask them,

he said, to perpetuate that loyal co-operation and to refrain

from appealing to Great Britain on the Natives' Land Act.

To appeal would be to put back the clock of the Native Affairs Department

for many years. Of course, it did not matter about

the putting back of the Natives' own clock, since its only use

is that of an index for the registration of Government taxes,

municipal pass fees at one shilling or more per month per Native,

and similar phases of the black man's burden. Thus, in answer to questions

put by the members of the Congress, Mr. Dower was not able to say

that one iota of the provisions of that Draconian law would be modified

before the Commission made its report, nor could he give a pledge

in the name of the Government that if the Commission reported

favourably to the Natives, Parliament would carry into effect

the Commission's report, even though the pledge sought

took no account of the possibility of the Commission's report being hostile

to the interests of the Natives. This then was the character of the visit

which the Government Secretary paid to the Native Congress.

It was entirely barren of results, and as such it left the Congress

as it found it, in bewilderment and gloom.

Fresh fears took hold of the Congress. When the commissioners' names

were gazetted, they were not received with any great amount of enthusiasm

by the native population, for the best that could be thought

of the Natives' Land Commissioners was that they were not associated

with any political party. With such a view, it can be understood

what were the feelings of the Congress when it thereafter learnt

that four of the five commissioners were present, as delegates,

at the conference of the Ministerial party held at Capetown two months before

(the conference at which Generals Hertzog and De Wet definitely severed

their connexion with General Botha), nor was there anything to show

that the fifth commissioner was not there also. Therefore, the situation

amounted to this, that this Land Commission, which should be

composed of impartial members, or, if made up of party politicians,

it should at any rate represent the three political parties

as well as the Natives, was in reality but a branch of the Ministerial party

which foisted this very Land Act upon the country.

It was finally resolved to appoint a deputation of five

to accompany the president, Mr. Dube, to England if further efforts failed.

The Congress nominated nine names, and the election of five delegates

from these was entrusted to a committee of fourteen members of the Congress,

who balloted for five and reported the result to the full Congress

as follows: --

S. T. Plaatje 13

S. M. Makgatho 9

Saul Msane 6

W. Z. Fenyang 3

T. M. Mapikela 3

Dr. W. B. Rubusana 2

A. K. Soga 2

M. Pellem 2

Chief Mamogale 1

The first-named five were therefore declared elected. Mr. Fenyang

subsequently stood down in favour of Dr. Rubusana; Mr. Makgatho was not able

to reach Capetown in time for the steamer's departure, so the deputation

that eventually accompanied the president to England were: --

1. Dr. Rubusana.

2. S. T. Plaatje.

3. Saul Msane.

4. T. M. Mapikela.

Their instructions were first to approach the Prime Minister and ask him

to undertake on behalf of his parliamentary majority to repeal

the Natives' Land Act, failing that, to endeavour at least

to get the clause rescinded which prevents evicted native tenants

from finding settlements anywhere except as servants, and that

if the Prime Minister should refuse to grant this request, they were forthwith

to appeal to the Imperial Parliament and the British public.

It may be added that the Congress, before it rose, received telegraphic

advices from Mr. Gibson of the Cape Church Council, and also from

the Hon. W. P. Schreiner, not to appeal to England. These communications

encouraged the delegates to believe that intermediate relief was being

arranged for, to ameliorate the condition of the wandering evicted Natives,

in which case there would, of course, be no occasion to appeal to England.

But it subsequently transpired that the Natives were advised against

making an appeal to England without the offer of any relief.

Before Congress rose votes of thanks were passed in favour of

the Bishop of Kimberley and Kuruman, the De Beers Company,

the `Diamond Fields Advertiser' for its liberal reports of the proceedings,

Mr. Dower for entertaining the delegates to a dinner on Monday,

and also to the residents of Kimberley.

The special thanks of the Congress were voiced by Mr. Makgatho

to the various committees, whose strenuous efforts for

the comfort of the delegates left nothing to be desired. These were: --

COMMITTEES OF LOCAL BRANCHES

KIMBERLEY. -- Messrs. Thos. Leeuw (chairman), S. Marogo (treasurer),

Bill Tshabalala, H. Ndlovu, Z. Jumane, A. R. Mashoko, T. Diniso (secretary).

BEACONSFIELD. -- Messrs. J. Smith (chairman), W. January,

S. Pehla (treasurer), Jas. Ngcezula, Ntshenge, B. Mradu,

J. S. Kokozela (secretary).

LOCAL ACCOMMODATION AND REFRESHMENTS COMMITTEE: Mesdames J. Smith,

S. Sidziya, M. Mahuma, S. Kawa, Mildred Kokozela and L. Skota;

Messrs. J. Chologi, J. Matsebe, S. Pehla, Soga, J. Ngcezula and A. Ntshoko.

CITY HALL RECEPTION COMMITTEE: Mesdames J. J. van der Riet and M. Ntsiko;

Messrs. Isaac P. Joshua, Sidney Motlhabi, P. W. Mama, T. Diniso,

Tony Msengana and J. G. Motlhabi.

An honorarium of 10 Pounds was voted in favour of the honorary secretary,

Mr. S. T. Plaatje.

After the deputation reached Capetown on May 13, 1914, we wrote Lord Gladstone

informing him that we were bearers of a petition from the native population

to His Majesty the King, which we would ask His Excellency

to graciously convey. Of course we expected a short note from His Excellency

to the effect that "it was not within his constitutional functions"

to meet us, but to our surprise this time His Excellency wrote

appointing a meeting with us at noon on May 15 at Government House.

But, in the interview, the reason why that particular appointment

came within the pale of His Excellency's constitutional functions

became apparent: for the Governor-General only made it the opportunity

to urge the deputation not to go to England.

The deputation replied that, even in native politics there was always

an appeal from the action of an induna to the native chief

and from the latter to the ruler; that it was straining the loyalty

of the black millions of South Africa to tell them that there was no appeal

to His Majesty the King against the oppressive laws of a Parliament

in which they had no representatives.

It must be added that although the Governor-General did not say so,

yet the barbarous cruelties of this relentless law appeared to have produced

a sympathy that was visible in his facial expression. Astonishment and pity

were amongst the sensations which seemed to be depicted

on Lord Gladstone's face. Still, he held out no hope that his good offices

would be used to secure an amelioration of the conditions complained of.

All His Excellency advised us to do was to abandon the appeal to England.

"But, your excellency, what about these cruelties that are now in progress?"

we asked.

"Oh, well," said Lord Gladstone, "the Natives are not the only sufferers,

even in England people have suffered hardships from time to time,

till they were compelled to emigrate to America and other places."

"That is true, your lordship, but it is to avert such a contingency,

if possible, that the Natives appointed a deputation to lay their case

before His Majesty the King, as they have no means to emigrate to America,

or any other country."

"Oh, no," he answered, "don't misunderstand me; I only use that

as an instance, not that Natives must emigrate."

The Governor-General then repeated the advice not to appeal to the Crown,

but he held out no hope of an amendment in the Act, and so the deputation

sailed for England.

Previous to this interview, no less a personage than General Botha himself

-- Premier and Minister for Native Affairs -- condescended to meet

the deputation. Prior to this meeting, the deputation entertained

strong hopes that the Premier would come to it with an offer of, say, at least

allowing the hiring of land by Natives, pending the report of the Commission,

even though the prohibition to buy land remained in force.

But instead of such a minimum, the only hope that General Botha held out

was that he had not evicted the Natives on his own farm,

and that he had further told some farmers not to evict their Natives.

These personal acts of the Premier on his own farm, and with regard to

some other farmers, had not helped the entire native population of the Union

since the Act was promulgated. Nor would they assist those native wanderers

who are now without a home on earth, as General Botha himself

could not allow any of them to settle on his farm without breaking the law.

Again, it did not seem quite clear how General Botha's efforts

in this direction could make any impression on private landowners when

his own officials were carrying out wholesale evictions of native tenants,

on the Government farms at Standerton and elsewhere, and sending them adrift

about the country. The only remedy, and that a partial one,

would be to legalize the settlement of tenants who have been evicted.

But to this General Botha said, "If I went to Parliament now

with a Bill to amend this law they will think I'm mad."

That statement confirmed the decision of the deputation to proceed to England,

and accordingly they at once made arrangements for sailing.

One painful fact which these interviews revealed was

the ignorance of the Government in matters relating to the Natives.

The 5,000,000 blacks of the Union are taxed to maintain

what is called the most expensive Civil Service in the world.

The officials of the Native Affairs Department, in return for

their huge salaries, paid out of the proceeds of taxes levied from

relatively the most poorly paid manual labourers in the world,

namely, the Native taxpayers, are called "the guardians of the Natives";

but General Botha, the Minister of Native Affairs, "Father of the Natives"

and supreme head of the Civil Service, seemed (or pretended)

to know absolutely nothing of the manner in which his official underlings

play battledore and shuttlecock with the interests of the Native population.

To mention but one instance: at one stage of the interview we attempted

to enlist his sympathy on behalf of the "Free" State Natives in particular,

who, in spite of prohibitive laws in the Boer statute books,

had not to our knowledge been debarred by the Boer Government

from buying or leasing land. General Botha not only denied that his was

the first Boer administration which definitely enforced these prohibitions

but he also asserted, with all the dignity of his office,

that no living Native had ever bought a farm in the "Free" State

from a white man -- in short he accused us of telling lies.

Fortunately Mr. E. Dower, who remembered that some Native landowners

in both the Hoopstad and Thaba Ncho districts of the "Free" State

had acquired their properties from white people under the Republican regime,

was present at the interview and he then bore out our statement:

thus on May 15, 1914, the Prime Minister and Minister of Native Affairs

heard for the first time in his life that there were some Natives

actually living in the "Free" State who pay him quit-rent on farms

which they had bought from white people under Republican rule.

The assertion that "Free" State Natives lost nothing by the enforcement

of the Natives' Land Act is but one phase of the maze of ignorance

through which the Union Government is groping in a hopeless attempt

to discharge their trust to the native taxpayers.

The co-operation of intelligent and responsible native taxpayers,

which could sweep away these administrative cobwebs of ignorance,

is always at the disposal of the Government if they deigned

to avail themselves of it; but they prefer, at enormous cost

to the taxpayers (including native taxpayers), to purchase

from the non-native section of the community arm-chair views

based largely on hearsay evidence, which is often tainted by colour prejudice.

Hence the shroud of ignorance which surrounds the native policy

of the Union of South Africa.

Chapter XVI The Appeal for Imperial Protection

Of all the characters of cruelty, I consider that as the most odious

which assumes the garb of mercy.

Fox.

On arrival in London the native delegates were received

by several friends, including Dr. Chas. Garnett, M.A.,

of the Brotherhood League; Rev. Amos Burnet, of Transvaal,

introduced them to the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in session

at Bishopsgate; the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society

communicated with the Colonial Office regarding an interview.

The Colonial Secretary agreed to see the deputation on condition

that they were accompanied by no one from the Society.

When the native deputation reached England there were

a number of South African missionaries on furlough in England

who had taken part in Church meetings in Africa, of protest against the Act.

Some of these gentlemen had witnessed the cruel operations of the Act;

but the decision to receive the native delegates by themselves

meant that no such eyewitnesses as these could testify

to what they had seen of the working of the Act.

In accordance with the time fixed for the interview, the deputation

duly waited upon the Secretary of State, whose reply was more fully given

in Parliament. At the interview he took notes on nothing, and asked

no questions. On every point he had "the assurance of General Botha"

to the contrary.

No headway having been made with the Government, it was resolved upon

that the delegates should appeal to the British Parliament

and thence to the British public in terms of the native mandate.

Later on Messrs. T. Buxton and J. H. Harris, the secretaries

of the A.S. and A.P.S., arranged a meeting for the delegates

to meet certain members of Parliament. The meeting took place

in No. 11 Committee Room of the House of Commons. The British peerage

was represented by Lords Emmott and H. Cavendish Bentinck.

After hearing the delegates and asking them questions,

the members of Parliament intimated that their decision would be

arrived at later in the absence of visitors. It must be mentioned here

that besides the above secretaries of the A.S. and A.P.S. there were also

present at this meeting a few sympathizers who were not members of Parliament.

They included Miss S. Colenso of Amersham, and the Rev. Dr. Howie of Stirling,

and Mrs. Howie, etc.

By the kindness of Mr. and Mrs. Buxton, Mr. and Mrs. Cobden Unwin

(in conjunction with Mrs. Saul Solomon), Lady Scott of Westminster,

Mrs. S. J. Colenso of Amersham, and Mr. H. E. Wood, J.P., of Camberwell

(the latter being a prelude to a successful meeting of the delegates with

the Baptist Council of England), Sir Albert Spicer, M.P., and Lady Spicer,

and Mr. and Mrs. Harris of Dulwich, receptions -- some of them attended

by English and Colonial guests -- held at the residences of the friends named,

were given in honour of the delegates.

==

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. P. ALDEN: I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman

the question of the native lands in South Africa. I happen to have been

responsible for a Resolution passed unanimously in this House

previous to the passing of the Act of Union, and in the discussion

which took place on that occasion the Under-Secretary of State to the Colonies

laid it down as one of the duties of the Imperial Parliament

to protect in every possible way the interests of the Natives in their land,

and protect their rights and liberties in that respect.

If we take away the land from the Native we take away his liberty.

In reference to the Natives Land Act of 1913, I want to put

two or three points before the right hon. Gentleman.

In the Union of South Africa, blacks own about 4,500,000 morgen of land,

and the whites own fourteen times as much land as the blacks,

though, of course, they are very much smaller in number. The inequality

is very noticeable in the Transvaal, where there are 300,000 whites

holding 31,000,000 morgen of land, and the 1,000,000 Natives

only have 500,000 morgen of land which they can call their own.

It has been said over and over again in South Africa that this law

applies equally to Europeans and whites as well as to the Natives.

There is, they say, no injustice. The European is estopped

from this purchase of land, just as the Native is estopped.

All I can say in answer to that is that the fallacy is shown

the moment you begin to ask what land the Natives have to sell.

The native areas are already overcrowded, and they positively have no land

which they could sell. When once a Native leaves his farm or is evicted,

or has to quit for any reason whatever, the Act does not allow him

to purchase, hire or to lease anywhere else for farming purposes

except from Natives, who have not the land to lease or to sell.

He therefore must become a servant on the farm. There is absolutely

nothing else for him to do but to become a servant. This Act has already

produced very great hardships. It has produced hardships to the people

who were under notice to quit at the time the Act was passed,

to the people who have actually since then been evicted from their farms,

to the Natives who were in search of land and who are wandering about

with their families and stock and have nowhere to settle,

and to the Natives who have had to leave their crops unreaped.

There are many hundreds of such cases of hardship which have been inflicted

under the Act which is being enforced on all sides. I do not wish to go

into this question at very great length, because the right hon. Gentleman

knows more about it than anybody in the House in all probability,

and he knows the difficulties of the situation.

I want to put before him just one point with regard to what can be done.

WE CALL OURSELVES THE PROTECTORS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE NATIVES,

and we claim that we have always, in season and out of season,

insisted that those rights should not be infringed, and that no action

should be taken against their liberties. The Imperial Government cannot,

of course, intervene in the sense of asking the Government of South Africa

either to rescind an Act of Parliament or to amend an Act of Parliament,

unless it is their own wish, but I must point out that

Clauses 1, 4, and 5 do operate most harshly against the Native,

and it might be possible, on the representation of the right hon. Gentleman,

for the Prime Minister of South Africa to mitigate the hardships.

Mr. CAVE: The subject to which the hon. Member has referred

is no doubt of importance, and no one can quarrel with the tone of the speech

in which he has introduced it.

Sir ALBERT SPICER: I quite realize that in South Africa

we have a self-governing country, and, therefore, one would be

desirous to be very careful in what he said with regard to

its administration and legislation. But this, at any rate,

is the right place to express the views that are held

by very large numbers of people in this country, who have devoted

a good deal of time and money in doing what they can to educate and uplift

the native races of South Africa. Those of us who know South Africa,

are perfectly well aware that whilst it is now a country

owned by the white races, it can only be properly and fully developed

with the help of the native races, and the better educated they are,

the better work they will be able to do for South Africa.

This Native Lands Act was passed very hurriedly. Of course,

we cannot blame South Africa for passing legislation hastily,

seeing that we are accustomed sometimes to do the same thing

in the Mother of Parliaments. Again, the appointment of the Commission,

which is now inquiring into the subject and is taking evidence,

is helping, I think, to produce injustice in some cases,

so far as the Natives are concerned, because the introduction of the Lands Act

has led farmers to take action to enforce their rights. They have terminated

the rent-paying agreements of former tenants, and, knowing that these

are precluded from making new agreements for the hire of land, they have

either ejected them or have demanded from them three months' unpaid service

per annum, which has had the indirect effect of reducing a free people

to a condition of service. I could give instances of that

from well authenticated sources. I will refer to one only.

It is the case of a chief and his people living on land

which they and their fathers have dwelt upon for eight generations.

The farm was recently purchased by a farmer resident in another province.

He decided to terminate the rent-paying conditions previously in existence

between the former owner and the Natives, and to substitute labour conditions,

under which even the chief, an old man, has been required to give service.

The people were called upon to quit their houses, square buildings,

timbered and thatched, and in connexion with this the owner gave

less than one month's notice in the following terms: --

"This is to notify I can let you have the school building

no longer. I bought the farm and wish to receive the same

at the end of your school quarter."

We desire to speak with all due respect of the self-governing Dominions

of South Africa, but I think we may fairly ask the Colonial Secretary

to help the Union Government to realize that there is a strong feeling

in this country in favour of everything possible being done

to secure just and reasonable treatment for the Natives.

One may fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman to use all reasonable influence

with the Union Government to secure for the Natives a fair quid pro quo

for the loss of their former rights of land purchase, which would mean

in some cases an extension of the native area, and if it were possible

to suspend to some extent the operation of the Act until the Land Commission

has reported. Having been connected with South Africa for a good many years,

having travelled through it, and given a good deal of time to it,

I desire to do what I can for the uplifting of the people of that country,

and that is my reason for intervening in this Debate.

==

Other sympathizers, including the Member for Woolwich,

rose in different parts of the House to support the foregoing appeal,

but the Colonial Secretary stopped them by delivering his reply.

==

The RT. HON. L. HARCOURT: The hon. member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden)

and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer)

have drawn attention to the South Africa Land Act. It is not

a sudden inspiration of the Botha Government. It is the outcome and result

of a Commission appointed by Lord Milner some years ago,

presided over by Sir Godfrey Lagden. The Commission was appointed

"In view of the possible federation of the South African Colonies

to gather accurate information as to native affairs so as to arrive

at a common understanding on questions of native policy."

That Commission sat for two years. It had upon it representatives

of every colony and territory. It arrived at what I believe

was a unanimous (sic) report,* and this Act is practically doing no more

than carrying out its recommendations. The Act has already been

in operation for twelve months. The Commission of Inquiry,

which was to be instituted under the Act, is now sitting.

It is bound by the terms of its appointment to report within two years,

and will probably report by Christmas next.** The whole of this Act

is a temporary measure until that Commission reports. A native deputation

has come over and seen me, and I believe many other members.

That deputation left Africa against the advice of General Botha,

and against almost the entreaties of Lord Gladstone. They knew that the Act

would not be disallowed, because it had been announced months before

in South Africa. The day the deputation saw me the period of twelve months

during which that Act could be disallowed on my recommendation

had already expired, and it is now an act which can only be suspended

by the Government and Parliament of the Union of South Africa.

--

* Col. Stanford (the Cape Colony representative on the Lagden Commission)

and Messrs. Campbell and Samuelson (the Natal representatives)

sent in two strongly-worded minority reports against such restrictions.

Vide S.A. Native Affairs Commission, 1903-5, Vol. I. -- Author.

** After Christmas the Commissioners' "terms of appointment" were altered

from two years to three years.

--

Sir W. BYLES: Does it forbid the holding of land by Natives?

Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to complete my statement

as the time is short.* The suspension of the Act would be worse than useless

at the present stage. It would suspend the Inquiry which is taking place

at this moment in the interests of the Natives themselves. I cannot believe

that any further Commission is necessary, as the existing one seems to me

both efficient and sufficient.

--

* Mr. Harcourt would have shortened the time considerably,

had he said "Yes" or "No", instead of replying in sixteen words.

--

==

It is not clear why Mr. Harcourt made this statement as the Natives,

in their petition to the King, never asked for a suspension of the whole Act.

All that they wished was that the harshest clauses of the measure

might be suspended, leaving the others in operation until the Commission

rendered its report.

When Mr. Harcourt's reference to the Commission was made known in South Africa

the Commissioners, then sitting in Pretoria, were informed of the plight

of evicted Natives. The Commissioners replied that any grievance

arising out of the operation of an Act of Parliament was beyond

the scope of their enquiry, and that they could not consider such grievances.

This was exactly what they had previously told the Natives

at King Williamstown and elsewhere. At Harrismith the Commission heard

the complaint of a son of Chief Wietzie, who, during the Basuto wars,

had always remained loyal to the "Free" State Boers. The son had been

evicted from the ground on which he and his fellow-tribesmen

had resided for generations and he was forced to live on an urban location

where it is impossible to do any farming. The President

(Sir William Beaumont) said he was sorry to hear that a son of Wietzie

found himself homeless, but he regretted that the Commission

could not help him. Mr. Harcourt, therefore, must have been

incorrectly informed regarding the functions of the Commission.

Yet another puzzle. After the appointment of this Commission

in September 1913, there was a newspaper report to the effect

that the Commission found the native difficulty most acute

in the "Free" State, and that it had decided on setting aside without delay

a strip of territory in the Western "Free" State as a native settlement.

Immediately after the appearance of this report in the Press,

angry meetings of the whites were held in Boshof and Hoopstad

to protest against the proposals attributed to the Commission.

In reply to these protests, Mr. Theron, the Minister of Lands,

evidently speaking on behalf of the South African Government,

not only repudiated the report but he also added significantly

that "the Government had no intention of creating a native area

in Hoopstad or anywhere else." So, where do we stand? Can it be wondered

that the Natives are beginning to conclude that their position under the Union

is hopeless?

But, to return to Mr. Harcourt, the Colonial Secretary also gave

the Imperial Parliament a fresh explanation of the Natives' Land Act.

It is a pity that we cannot reproduce his explanation side by side

with the four explanatory circulars issued by the Union Government in 1913.

Such a reproduction would show the discrepancy between the five explanations.

We wrote to South Africa but could only secure one of these circulars,

which purports to be an explanation of a previous explanatory circular --

an explanation of an explanation. However, the definition of the Act,

as given by the other three circulars, leaves, as far as we can remember,

the root principle of the Act unexplained. Moreover, the statements set forth

in these circulars are not in harmony; they have only one point of agreement,

namely: that when Natives are driven out of their homes by the law,

and are debarred by the same law from establishing other homes

(the only provision made for them being that they should live

as servants of the whites) the circumstances give them

no ground for complaint.

Take for instance only two sentences in Mr. Harcourt's explanation.

In the first of these, he appears to approve of the system of forced labour

established by the Act; in the second, he denies the evictions that took place

in July when he spoke, and those that took place subsequently. He seems

to flatly deny not only what is admitted by Lord Gladstone and General Botha,

but he likewise contradicts the terms of the Act itself.

Indeed, if we had not been there and heard him we should have felt, on reading

this part of his speech, that he had been misreported in Hansard. Thus --

==

If the Natives are farm labourers there is no limit to the number

who may reside on white property. If not, they are not dispossessed

until Parliament acts upon the report of the Commissioners, and then only

when suitable land is provided by addition to a native reserve.*

--

* At Downing Street Mr. Harcourt informed the Deputation

that he had the "assurance of General Botha" that the Natives

have too much land already.

--

==

The Imperial explanation being as obscure as the Colonial explanations

which preceded it, the reader's remedy is to fall back

on the plain English of the Act (Chapter III), which alone has

the force of law. Again Mr. Harcourt: --

==

If General Botha breaks his word I have no power to enforce it.

I cannot bind his successors. If the Government of South Africa

is not to be trusted in this matter they are to be trusted in nothing;

and we know perfectly well that they can be trusted in these matters.

NOTE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIAN IMMIGRATION ACT.

THIS WAS PASSED NOT FROM LOCAL DESIRE, BUT FROM IMPERIAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COLONISTS

AND BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INDIANS, WHO CONSIDER IT

THE MAGNA CHARTA OF THE INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA. I think that that should be

a sufficient guarantee as to the way in which General Botha proposes to act.

General Botha, too, used THESE WORDS in Parliament: --

"He had told the deputation that he had given standing instructions

to the magistrates throughout the country that if they found

any one in their districts ejecting Natives from the farms

they had to go and make inquiries and report to him. He had

in all those cases which had been brought to his notice

used the influence of his Department."

==

All we can say in regard to "these words" is that the Magistrates

apparently ignored the "standing instructions" alluded to,

for they allowed the officials of the Department of Lands

to scatter the native tenants from Government farms at Standerton,

Colworth and elsewhere and sent them adrift over the country,

well knowing that they could find no other shelter.

On the 31st of January, 1914, the Magistrate of Ladysmith,

presumably acting under instructions from one of General Botha's Departments,

issued the following notice to 79 native families in his district: --

==

"To Vellem Sibisi, Kraal Head residing on one of the following farms,

viz. Remainder of Brakfontein, Remainder of Weltevrede, etc.,

"Take notice in terms of Section 4 of Law 41 of 1884 that you are required

to remove with your Kraal and inmates from whichever of the said farms

you may be residing on, six months from this date, the aforementioned farms

having all been purchased by Government for closer settlement purposes."

==

The Magistrate who so ruthlessly ejected these and other native families

acted under the orders of the Government, who settled white people

on the farms at the expense of a Treasury maintained also by native taxpayers.

And it seems difficult to conceive how a Government which proved

so indifferent regarding the fate of its own native tenants or of tenants

on farms freshly acquired at the public expense, could be solicitous about

the welfare of Natives evicted by private landowners. The statement,

on the face of it, is incongruous.

In his heroic efforts to defend South Africa's giant wrong,

Mr. Harcourt gave away his case when he referred approvingly

to what he calls "the Magna Charta of the Indians in South Africa".

Now, what is this "Magna Charta"? In 1913, when the South African Parliament

was at the noontide of its "mad career", it passed this iniquitous land law

to repress the native race; and also a law imposing the most

humiliating limitations on British Indians. Yet it must be added

that the Indian law was the milder of the two, as it did not prohibit

Indian residents in South Africa from living on the land.

The Rt. Hon. A. Fischer, Union Minister of the Interior,

who died two years ago, called these two laws of 1913,

"the Kafir law and the Coolie law".

As already stated, the London Committee of the Wesleyan Methodist Church

asked to see Mr. Harcourt and inform him how drastically the "Kafir law"

was operating against their converts and other Natives in South Africa,

but Mr. Harcourt discreetly refused to see the Committee.

As for the Indians, no one in South Africa paid any heed to their complaints

against the "Coolie law"; but their cry reached India and Lord Hardinge

demanded the redress of their grievances. His Lordship insisted so forcibly

that (unlike the Wesleyan missionaries) he could not be ignored.

The result was that the South African Parliament, "not from local desire,

but from Imperial consideration", was obliged in the next session (1914)

to amend the "Coolie law" with a "Magna Charta of the Indians

in South Africa", and Mr. Harcourt's reference to this episode

conveys the suggestion that what is sauce for the Indian goose,

with Lord Hardinge at its back, can be by no means sauce for the native gander

without the backing of a Viceroy.

We cannot believe that to boast in one and the same speech

about a "Magna Charta of the Indians" and dismiss the native appeal

against a vital wrong is true Imperialism. For if Imperialism stands

for the protection of a few thousand Indians in South Africa because they are

supported by a Viceroy, and the neglect of the groans of five million Natives

because (unlike a Viceroy) the missionaries who plead for them

cannot enforce their claim with a political or diplomatic blow,

then there would appear to be the suggestion of more fear than justice

in Imperialism.

Mr. Harcourt further credits the Milner Commission, presided over by

Sir Godfrey Lagden, with the origin of the Natives' Land Act. We do not wish

to defend the policy of these two former South African Statesmen, as we

feel certain that they can take care of themselves. But we must say at once

that we read the recommendations of the Lagden Commission ten years ago,

as carefully as we have since read the controversy of the Natives' Land Act;

and with the knowledge thus gained, we can safely tell the reader

that that Commission never recommended that: --

1. "Except with the permission of the Governor-General", Europeans must

be debarred from buying land from Natives (who have no land to sell),

and Natives must be debarred from buying land or leasing land from Europeans,

who alone deal in land. -- (Sect. 1 of the Nat. Land Act).

2. When evicted Natives apply for the said "permission of

the Governor-General" they should be told that that permission

"will only be granted to a few exceptional applicants"

and that it could under no circumstances be granted to Natives

in the colony in which the applicants resided (The Government's reply

to the "Free" State wanderers).

3. The Government should always take from three to six months

to deliver this refusal, during which period applicants may have

already become serfs or fled the country. (This has been

the experience of all applicants within the writer's knowledge.)

4. There should be a fine of 100 Pounds or six months' hard labour

on any farmer who provides the Native with a shelter while he is waiting

for this disappointing reply to his application (Sect. 5 Nat. Land Act).

5. Native tenants to be hounded out of the Government farms

long before the segregation takes place and that white people,

who are not debarred from buying or leasing land for themselves,

be settled thereon at Government expense. (See magisterial notice above.)

If Mr. Harcourt has been told by any one that the Lagden Commission

recommended any of these pitiless iniquities, then we are afraid

that his informer is a romancer of the superlative degree.

The Lagden report was never discussed in any South African legislature,

much less adopted by any Parliament in South Africa; indeed, it is detested

because it recommended a Native Franchise for South Africa

like the Maori Franchise of New Zealand.

One member of Parliament (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said South Africa

was a Home Rule country and he wondered what would happen if after Home Rule

had been granted to Ireland some one asked the Imperial Parliament

to interfere with Irish legislation.

We wonder who could have told this hon. Member that there was Home Rule

in South Africa! There used to be Home Rule in the Cape Colony alone,

but this has been swamped by the Act of Union, which has since

established an oligarchic Government throughout the country.

And if by Home Rule to Ireland it is intended to give the franchise

to a selfish, greedy and tyrannical few; and give carte blanche

to this few, telling them thereby to do what they wish

with the rest of the population of Ireland, and telling them further

that they will be accountable to nobody for any good legislation

that they might enact on the one hand, or any maladministration

that they might perform on the other hand as is the case in South Africa --

if that be what is meant by Home Rule for Ireland, then God have mercy

on the Irish.

When the reply of Mr. Harcourt was published in South Africa,

supporters of this cruel law bubbled over with joy concerning it.

One Dutch writer, after saying in a Dutch journal some very fine things

about Mr. Harcourt, wound up a high-sounding eulogy

by congratulating South Africa on having such a good Colonial Secretary

at Downing Street. "Had Mr. Harcourt's predecessors been like him,"

said this writer to his readers, "South Africa would have been saved

many tears." We doubt if Mr. Harcourt, the object of this appreciation,

would feel flattered by it if he knew that all the black victims

of this cruel law, and all their European sympathizers,

stood firmly by the Imperial Government and by the Colonial Government

in the present struggle, while the gentleman at whose instance

it was introduced in Parliament, as well as the Dutch editor of the journal

alluded to, are at present (May 1915) committed for trial

on charges of high treason; and the proprietor of another Dutch journal,

in which we read similar vaunting adulations of Mr. Harcourt, was fined

60 Pounds (so his paper says) for alleged complicity in the recent rebellion.

These facts should impel the Rt. Hon. the Colonial Secretary to stop,

look round and inquire "who's who" among his South African admirers.

Two members of the South African Parliament -- Senator T. L. Schreiner

and Mr. Wilcocks, M.L.A. -- the former an opponent and the latter

a supporter of the Natives' Land Act, recently discussed the Act

from separate points of view; and both came to the conclusion that the measure

was designed to keep the blacks in subjection. This conclusion is in harmony

with the bitter experiences of the native races since this Act was enforced.

Yet in the face of this unanimous testimony of different observers,

Mr. Harcourt equivocates behind the irrelevant "assurances of General Botha"

about a possible segregation, which question is not now before the country.

Assurances on segregation only serve to confound the issue.

If the Beaumont commission, or its successor, should ever report

then the question of segregation may come before Parliament

some time in 1926. The point before the country now is not segregation,

but the Natives' Land Act of 1913, which is now scattering the Natives

about the country. That is the measure against which the Native appeals

for Imperial protection. Not the future segregation.

The only serious objection with which Mr. Harcourt apparently was able

to charge the native deputation, and one which the Natives do not deny,

is that they came to England against the "entreaties of Lord Gladstone"

(who previously had twice refused to see them), and against

the "advice of General Botha", by whose Cabinet the measure

was enacted and enforced.

It is a pity that Mr. Harcourt did not at the same time

tell the House of an authentic case where an aggrieved party

ever sued for redress with the consent and advice of his oppressor.

In this connexion, the scope of our reading being limited,

our ignorance is possibly abysmal; but it must be confessed that we have

never heard of such an interesting appellant and we are inclined to believe

that there never has been one.

If General Botha wished to tell the whole truth, instead of making

vague assurances to Mr. Harcourt, he would say: "I foresaw all

the difficulties under which the Natives are suffering; and when Mr. Grobler

proposed the summary stoppage of the sale and lease of land to Natives

before the areas are segregated, I warned the House against this trouble,

but the Hertzogites being too much for me I had to give in."

Gen. Botha could go further and say to Mr. Harcourt: "If you will turn up

page 579 of the South African Hansard (first column) reading from

the top of the page, you will find my warning in these words: --

==

Unless they went slowly and carefully, there was a danger that they might

take steps which would be unreasonable, unjust, and unfair on one section.

For that reason, he regretted the amendment proposed by General Hertzog,

because the amendment would have bad results if it were accepted.

It would lead to an over-hasty measure of a most impracticable kind.

This House would have to demarcate exactly and immediately

those parts where the Natives would have to live, and he asked them:

was this House able to do so? (Cries of "No".) It was all very nice

to talk and take a map and draw lines on it. On the map they might be able

to beacon off parts, and say, "This is for the Natives,"

but then, when they put their scheme into effect, they might find

that the ground of many individuals had been taken away

without any inquiries or any investigations having been made.

(Laughter, and "Hear hear".) This House would expropriate

the rights of many white people, and they would meet with

the greatest opposition. Where were they going to put these people then?

In the Transvaal, farmers certainly would not consent to this; he did not know

the people of the Free State so well, but he doubted whether they would agree.

(A Free State Member: "No, they certainly will not.") Instead of taking

any steps like this, they should be practical, and not land themselves

into greater difficulties than they could help. Governments before them

had done their best. He agreed that the squatting of Natives should be

put an end to as soon as possible, but they should not lose sight of the fact

that many Governments before them had done their best to put an end

to this squatting evil. He knew well how the Transvaal Government had,

year after year, taken up this matter. But what did they find? Simply that

when they had passed a Squatters Law they could only put it into operation

in one small part of the country. (Hear, hear.) To introduce

another Bill like that would simply mean deceiving the country

-- (hear, hear) -- and the Natives. If they accepted

the proposal of the Minister of Native Affairs to appoint a Commission

to investigate the various conditions prevailing throughout the country,

he thought they would be taking a step in the right direction. (Hear, hear.)

However, care was essential, because they must prevent causing

a sort of revolution through the country. What they wanted

was a measure which would be acceptable to the white man

as well as to the Native. (Hear, hear.)

==

These were General Botha's views when the Land Act was first mooted,

but in defiance of his solemn warning, the Bill, when gazetted, provided that

the eviction of native tenants should precede the Commission's inquiry;

harsher and still harsher clauses were inserted in the Bill until the Act

finally embodied all the proposals brought forward by General Hertzog.

The promise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was also broken,

presumably as a result of pressure from the caucus. The Government

could not face a Select Committee after this complete change of front

as they must have known that reason was absolutely against them.

It might be asked: How could a Minister turn round afterwards

and give "assurances" concerning the benefits of a measure

which he had opposed before? To such a question we would hazard

the following explanation: Our Prime Minister, on the one hand,

is a British Privy Councillor and a General in the British Army;

and, on the other hand, he is a simple Afrikander Boer,

who only speaks Dutch in Parliament and addresses English audiences

through an interpreter. And so in the eyes of General Botha,

the British Crown Minister, if the Natives be treated justly,

as British subjects should be treated, it is right; and, again,

in the eyes of General Botha, the Afrikander Boer, if the Natives be treated

harshly and barbarously, that too is right.

It is not unusual to find these two natures contending against each other

in one and the same person, whenever the Prime Minister

deals with native questions; then more often than not the Boer view,

being that of his own nature, dominates the British sentiment,

which is a fresh acquisition.

Having given above a striking extract from a speech on native policy,

by the Rt. Hon. Louis Botha, Premier of British South Africa,

we will now proceed to give an extract from another declaration

by General Louis Botha, the Transvaal Boer. The Union Premier

was giving evidence before the Labour Commission in Johannesburg

and this is what he then said: --

==

11,302. Sir GEORGE FARRAR: You said that you would recommend

the breaking up of Locations like Swaziland, Zululand and Basutoland

and the putting of white settlers there? General BOTHA: I would suggest

that these countries be given up to the white people to live in. . . .

11,337. The general tenor of your remarks is that there is sufficient labour,

and it only wants a little patience to wait for it, that is all?

I have distinctly stated that there is a greater amount of labour

than has at present been obtained. But there are farmers who have farms,

and have no Natives living on these farms. For these people it is difficult

to obtain Natives because the Natives who are not living on the farms

are in locations. If the locations were broken up the Natives would be made

to live on farms.

11,338. You suggest that we should break up such land as Basutoland,

Swaziland and Zululand? Yes, I say that such places are a source of evil.

It is building up a Kaffir kingdom in the midst of us which is not only

bad for the Kaffirs themselves but is a danger in the future.*

--

* One of the Chiefs in these locations gave General Botha 200 bullocks

to feed his troops engaged in crushing a rebellion of white men.

--

11,339. But take Zululand, for instance; there is a quarter of a million

people there. What would you do with them if you break up their territory?

They would all live on the farms as the white people are doing now.

11,340. Oh, you want to cut up the land into farms,

give it to the white people and retain the Kaffirs on the farms? Yes.

11,343. But what will the white people do with the Kaffirs,

pay them wages or charge them rent for the ground or what?

My opinion is that Kaffirs who now live in locations should work

for the white people, and the land should be exploited. The white people

would pay them for the work they did and this would civilize them.

11,344. A nation like the Basutos you would deal with

in the same way? -- Yes.

11,345. They at present occupy the land, we have had it in evidence before us

to the effect that every inch of land in Basutoland is occupied and worked

by the Kaffirs themselves as their own property? -- That is just

my argument . . . because there is opening for the Kaffirs there

they go and live there without doing anything.

11,347. But they do something. They work the whole country,

they have a lot of grain? -- Yes, for themselves.

11,352. . . . I have shown you that Basutoland is fully occupied by Kaffirs,

and they work it. Do you want to apply your scheme to Basutoland? --

I do not know very much about Basutoland, I have never been there personally;

but I am well acquainted with Zululand and also Swaziland,

and I want to state this, that in my opinion it is not only a wrong policy,

but also dangerous policy to have large tracts of country inhabited

by uncivilized races, and to keep them there on the present terms.

11,353. But these Natives lived there from time immemorial.

It was theirs before we came here. How can we drive them off the land now,

and take it for ourselves? I think we are feeling very happy

that we drove them from Johannesburg in the olden days.

They lived in this country too just the same and the Kaffirs

who became civilized under us have improved.*

--

* `Transvaal Labour Commission', pp. 717-726.

--

==

In the foregoing extract the reader has the root principle

of the Natives' Land Act in a nut-shell. Not from hearsay "assurances"

but from what fell from the Premier's own lips.

Mr. Jacob de Villiers Roos, head of the Union Law Department (who knows more

about South African law than outsiders who have to rely on "assurances",)

says in his evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts,

February 25, 1914, incidentally or accidentally: --

==

"A circular was issued by our Department, at the instigation

of the Native Affairs Department, asking that prosecutors

under the Natives' Land Act, before commencing prosecutions,

should refer to the Native Affairs Department as otherwise

IT WAS FEARED THAT AN UPHEAVAL MIGHT RESULT. The Transvaal Attorney-General

drew our attention to this circular and said that it was

an infringement of his powers. . . . When Mr. Beyers went away on leave

Mr. Greenlees was appointed Acting Attorney-General,

and he first drew the attention of the Minister to it.

The Minister took no action until Mr. Beyers returned

when the matter was again raised and then this circular was withdrawn."*

--

* S.C. 1-'14, pp. 136-137.

--

==

Now, what, in the name of common sense, does a supposedly civilized Government

want with a law that it knows will cause "an upheaval"?

This Act should be abolished in the interest of the morality of the State

and for the sake of the reputation of the Union Jack,

because of the harm it does to the Natives and because its promoters

have rebelled against the Crown. The Act has benefited no one;

it has driven the Natives from the country to the cities,

and has also disappointed the White Labour Party, who supported it

in the belief that by its clause forcing Natives to work for white farmers

it would keep the Natives away from the industrial centres.

It should be abolished in the interests of the Boers,

for it has aroused the bitterest enmity of the blacks

against the Dutch section of his Majesty's subjects.

Further, the Act should be abolished because it has lowered the prestige

of the Union Jack in the eyes of the coloured subjects of the King,

who have suffered and are still suffering untold misery under it.

Perhaps nothing illustrates more clearly this changed feeling of the Natives

than the present state of things in South Africa. Thus, if German

South-West Africa had been annexed to the Cape before the Union, every Native,

south of the Zambesi, would have approved of the step, whereas to-day,

as a result of the Natives' Land Act, there is a different feeling extant.

For now the Natives know that annexation to the Union will mean

the elimination of the Imperial factor, and that as Capetown, like Pretoria,

has ceased to represent British ideas of fair play and justice,

such a change would in the annexed territory establish "Free" State ideals

under the aegis of the Union Jack. The Natives of the Union

shudder at the possibility of the Damaras, who are now under

the harsh rule of the Germans, being placed under a self-governing Dominion

in which the German rule will be accentuated by the truculent

"Free" State ideas of ruling Natives. And they think that

in the existing state of circumstances, Portuguese or French rule would be

infinitely better for the Damaras than a Government which, although protected

by the Union Jack, yet is inspired from Pretoria and Bloemfontein.

And it is to be feared that the pernicious principles

which Tommy Atkins is now fighting on the Continent to suppress,

are going to be rigorously applied in a South-West Africa

under Burgher rule. The prosperity of no State can afford to alienate

the sympathy of any considerable portion of its tax-payers. And so,

as 5,000,000 blacks have been alienated in their sympathies to the Union

by this oppressive law, and as the Union Government is unable or unwilling

to amend it, in the interest of the Union Government, no less than

the 5,000,000 blacks, outside intervention becomes a necessity.

During three separate white men's upheavals in the last two years

-- two bloody strikes and a civil war -- white revolters made frantic efforts

to embroil the Union in a native rising, but the Natives very sensibly

sided with the Government. The native leaders, in order to counteract

this mischief-making, had to incur the expense of journeys by rail

besides financing their own mission to reach the scene of the would-be

native disturbance.

The time will come when these leaders will tire of spending their own money

in paying fares to the Government Railways, to render free services

to a Government which taxes them to pay other people lavishly

for similar work, while it does not even tender them so much

as a word of thanks.

Instead of the smallest recognition for our voluntary services,

the Union Government repays our loyalty by persecuting

our widows and fatherless children with the cold-blooded provisions

of the Natives' Land Act. These cruelties are euphemistically described

as the first step towards the segregation of white and black,

but they might more truthfully be styled the first steps

towards the extermination of the blacks.

When the war broke out, the Government promptly suspended

the inquiries of the Commission, whose report is naively alleged

to be pregnant with the fruits of the millennium, but the cruel evictions

under the same law of the rebel Grobler are pursuing their course

while the war lasts and the Union Government remains unconcerned.

It was only when a whole tribe was evicted during the war

that the Government interceded on behalf of the victims,

but then, the only extent of the intervention has been to secure

exemption for the chief of the tribe alone, on the condition that

HE FORCED THE REST OF HIS TRIBE TO RENDER EVERY YEAR THREE MONTHS' LABOUR

TO THE LANDOWNER. Yet these people could live happily on some other farm

did not the Government prohibit their happiness at the behest of a rebel who,

at or about the time of this enthralling compromise, was conducting

treasonable operations against the Government.

The sublime ingratitude of the Union Government is wellnigh unbearable!

Chapter XVII The London Press and the Natives' Land Act

Slaves cannot breathe in England: if their lungs

Receive our air, that moment they are free;

They touch our country, and their shackles fall.

Cowper.

The native deputation (thanks to Mr. H. Cornish, secretary of

the Institute of Journalists) can truthfully assure their people,

at the present critical state of their position, of the sympathy

of the London Press. It is hardly necessary to mention

that religious papers, to which the object of the deputation was made known,

published some very encouraging articles on the same,

and bespoke the deputation a cordial reception and a sympathetic hearing

throughout the United Kingdom; but the mission might have been

somewhat monotonous had we friends only and no enemies in the London Press.

And a weekly paper with a yellow cover, called `South Africa',

did its best to fill the role of an enemy.

It abused the Brotherhood Movement and the Aborigines Protection Society for

taking up the cause of the deputation. The General Press Cutting Association,

however, through whom we learnt of the attacks of `South Africa',

did not tell us whether this journal also abused our other friends

represented by the London Press. Such has been our good fortune

in this respect that friends frequently congratulated us

on the unanimity of the Press in our favour. In this we think

they were right, as a cause with only one enemy could very well be depended on

to take care of itself.

On one occasion some of our friends heard that the author

was going to interview the fine-fingered editor of the `Westminster Gazette'

by appointment, and they strongly advised us against doing so.

"Why not?" we asked. "Oh," said our friends, "he edits the leading

Government organ, and he is going to pump you of all information

in order to use it against your cause and in favour of the Government."

But we went -- firstly, because we refused to believe

that the editor of that great organ of British thought

was capable of taking such a mean advantage of us; and secondly,

because we were confident of being able to take care of ourselves

against any kind of pump; and we can now say with satisfaction that,

on the part of the British public, there was such a demand

for back numbers of the two editions of the `Westminster Gazette'

which contained a report of our interview and a photograph of the deputation

that in a fortnight both issues were sold out of print. Further,

it is safe to say that from the wide area from which inquirers wrote to us

mentioning the `Daily News', it would seem that either that journal

has a very big circulation or its readers are mainly interested

in South African Affairs. And what, may be asked, are the qualifications

of the newspaper `South Africa' which attempted to run counter

to this overwhelming opinion in our favour?

Unlike some of its contemporaries, `South Africa' has not

a single native contributor to its columns. Some London newspapers

are in regular receipt of exchange copies from native newspapers

published in South Africa, London papers which never claimed

a monopoly over South African thought; yet here is a paper,

South African in title and in pretensions, which cannot even boast

of a South African native paper on its exchange list! What information, then,

can the editors of such an exclusive London paper possess

about an Act specifically enacted to operate against Natives?

Logically, they would know absolutely less than next to nothing

about such a law or its fell work. That alone should dispose of

the qualifications of this enemy of the deputation, and his authority to speak

on the subject of its mission.

The `African World' is an Anglo-African weekly which has

native newspaper exchanges and several African correspondents

both white and black. Its editor-in-chief was born in South Africa

and was a journalist there before he came to reside in England;

and it must be admitted that a paper with such connexions

is in a better position to discuss the subject from both points of view.

And so the `African World' says:

==

THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVE DEPUTATION

It must be admitted that the South African Native Deputation

now in this country have gone about their business with decorum.

They have not pressed themselves forward unduly, and, so far,

the publicity given to them has been moderate in its tone, and the expressions

by the members of the deputation have been equally moderate.

Of course, their best friends discountenanced this visit, as we have noted

from the South African Press, but it seems to be the general opinion

that even though no appeal lies under the Union Constitution

to the British Crown as regards native rights, an extraordinary anomaly

seems to exist in this: That the Natives of South Africa within the Union

appear to have fewer rights than those outside the Union, especially so far

as an appeal to London on various matters affecting their interests

is concerned. We are aware that Mr. Harcourt treated the deputation

with the utmost discretion when he received them. We also know

that Mr. Harcourt and General Botha are on very friendly personal relations,

and under these circumstances, without wishing to dictate

any action in the matter to the powers that be on both sides of the water,

we would like to join our contemporary `The Globe'.

==

And what did `The Globe' say?

==

THE NATIVE APPEAL

The complaint of the South African Natives who have laid their grievances

before certain members of Parliament amounts in effect to a complaint

that Parliament is not Imperial. Their grievances are real and pressing,

as anybody can discover who troubles to look up the recent proceedings

of the Union Parliament, but they have no constitutional means

of ventilating them. No native franchise exists in South Africa,

and although certain members of the Union Senate are presumed

to keep an eye on native questions their influence has proved ineffective.

No appeal exists under the Union Constitution to the Crown

as regards Native rights, for although this omission was pointed out

at the time the Act of Union was debated in the Imperial Parliament

and was adversely commented on, no steps were taken by the Colonial Office

to rectify the constitution in this respect. We are, therefore,

brought up against the extraordinary anomaly that Natives of South Africa

within the Union have fewer rights than those outside -- for the Basutos,

who remain under direct Imperial control, have successfully appealed to London

on various matters affecting their interests -- or even than

the Natives of Crown Colonies elsewhere, as the appeal of native landowners

on the Gold Coast against recent legislation in that territory attests.

In the latter case the appeal to the Colonial Office

was successful in modifying the offending enactments;

in the far more serious grievances of the South African Natives

the Colonial Office has no constitutional title whatever.

Nevertheless the relations between Mr. Harcourt and General Botha

in other respects are notoriously so close and confidential that we may hope

the Colonial Secretary will take the present occasion by the hand

and urge upon the head of the South African Government

the wisdom of dealing with native discontents in his own proper sphere

before he prosecutes his claim for the inclusion of the Basutos and Rhodesia

in the Union -- a claim which both the black Natives and the white colonists

have repudiated with all the emphasis at their command.

General Botha could scarcely fail to give heed to private advice

from the Colonial Office. In the case of the Natal Indians, whose grievances

he recently redressed, he proved himself a man capable of taking

a broad and generous view of a difficult question. There is no reason

to anticipate until the contrary is proved, that he will fall below

his own level in the present not less difficult or dangerous case.

==

==

VIEWS OF THE `DAILY NEWS'

"The South African National Congress, after resorting to

every constitutional means of pressing their case against the Land Act

on the Union Government, have sent five of their number to London

in the firm conviction that the King of England, to whom they look

as their natural defender and vindicator, will turn no deaf ear

to their pleas. Two of the five -- the Rev. J. L. Dube and Mr. Saul Msane --

are Zulus; Dr. Rubusana is a Xosa; Mr. Mapikela, a Fingo;

and Mr. Plaatje, the secretary of the National Congress, a Bechuana.

All of them are men of obvious culture and with a striking command

of the English language."

"Having failed to make any impression on the Union Government

(`If we had votes,' Dr. Rubusana observed, `we could fight our own battles')

the deputation has come to England in the hope of influencing

the Imperial Government through the Colonial Secretary.

"What they ask for is:

"First, a suspension of the operation of the Act pending the report

of the Delimitation Commission:

"Second, an inquiry into native grievances under the Act; and,

"Thirdly, an assurance that the Home Government will express its concurrence

with certain promises made recently on behalf of General Botha,

but obviously depending for their value on the continuance of

his personal political supremacy.

Four Blacks to One White

"In carving out estates for themselves in Africa the white races have shown

little regard for the claims of the black man," says the `Daily News'.

"They have appropriated his land, and in appropriating his land

have taken away his economic freedom, and have left him in a worse case

than they found him. How the Native has been dispossessed may be illustrated

by the facts in regard to the Union of South Africa. Here the blacks,

as compared with the whites, are in the proportion of four to one;

but they are in legal occupation of only one-fifteenth of the soil.

"Under the Natives' Land Act, which has brought the matter to a crisis,

even the poor fragment of rights in the soil that remains seems doomed.

For under the Act the Native is denied the right -- except with

the quite illusory `approval of the Governor-General' to purchase, hire,

or acquire any rights in land from a person other than a Native.

Under this provision, the Native whose tenancy expires, or who is evicted

from a farm, is legally denied any career except that of a labourer.

He cannot own, he cannot hire, he cannot live a free man.

A Legal Serf

"In the language of Mr. Dower, the Secretary for Native Affairs,

he must `sell his stock and go into service.' He must accept any conditions

the white farmer chooses or the mine-owner gives, and an ingenious clause

encourages the white farmer to exact unpaid service from the native tenants.

In a word, the Native is a legal serf in his own land.

"As British subjects, the deputation of Natives now in England

have appealed to the Imperial Government for protection.

They asked for its help to secure the suspension of the Act

until the Land Commission report is before Parliament,

and for machinery to inquire into and redress their grievances.

They have got no satisfaction on these points.

"It is time that Parliament gave some attention to its obligations

in regard to the South African Native. He has no vote and no friends --

only his labour, which the white man wants on the cheapest terms.

And the white man has got this by taking his land and imposing on him

taxes that he cannot pay. In fact, the black man is `rounded up'

on every side, and if, as the deputation suggest may be the case,

he is forced to acts of violence, it will not be possible to say

that he has not had abundant provocation.

Rights to the Soil

"There is only one principle that can be applied for his protection.

It is the principle that he has rights in his native soil.

Perhaps segregation is the only remedy now, but if so

the reservations allocated to him in the Union area ought to have

some relation to his needs. We cannot do much for him there,

but we should do what we can."

==

Mr. Advocate F. A. Silva wrote to the `Daily News': --

==

AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE

Sir, -- Will you please allow me space, while appreciating

your editorial of this date, to bring to the kind notice of your readers

the distinction between "British justice as supposed to be"

and "British justice as it is" with regard to the subject races,

especially the black men?

If even the "hair" of a "white" British subject were to be touched in China

or Japan or Turkey or Russia, the whole of the political parties of England,

with their usual patriotism, will rise to the occasion, and with one accord

demand the use of physical force against that country.

But here in South Africa, on the day the "Act" came into law, all agreements

with regard to land were terminated, and thousands of the Natives

found themselves ruined and homeless. From tenants they have become serfs.

If the Imperial Parliament looks with complacency on these

tyrannical proceedings of a local Parliament, then the British public

should not be surprised if the intelligent and thoughtful

among the subject races of "Britain" consider "British justice"

and "Russian tyranny" to be synonymous terms.

==

Let us draw attention to one more letter, by an Anglo-African

to the `Daily News', which was typical of the rest: --

==

THE BLACK MAN'S BURDEN

Sir, -- Those of your readers who, like myself, have some

first-hand knowledge of the Natives of South Africa, know that this grievance

voiced by the native deputation is a very real one. That such a deputation

should have to come to England to urge such a plea is humiliating enough

to them and to us. That their plea should be urged in vain

would be disastrous to the last degree.

If the Natives' Land Act is the best thing the Union Government can do

in the discharge of its responsibilities to the native tribes

placed under its care by the King, then many of us would have to revise

our faith in self-government as a fit instrument of national evolution;

and would, moreover, strenuously resist the ultimate incorporation

of the northern territories within the Union as being infinitely worse

for the black man than even government under Chartered Company control.

One hopes that it is not yet too late for both Boer and Briton in South Africa

to see that this debasement of the whole idea of self-government

is to affront and discourage all in Great Britain who saw

in the grant of its own political freedom to that great country

a healing for its many woes. In the meantime Liberalism

must back the native deputation at all costs, and it is well

that `The Daily News and Leader' should lead the way.

==

==

ONE OBJECT OF THE S.A. WAR: THE LIBERATION OF THE NATIVE

One object of the South African War was to liberate the Native

in the Transvaal. One result of it is that we have practically

less opportunity to interfere in his behalf than we had

under the Convention with the South African Republic. Interference in

the internal affairs of a self-governing colony -- in this case a colony

in which a small number of white men govern a large number of black --

has ceased to be within the realm of practical politics.

But if this political interference is impossible, moral remonstrance

is all the more in point. There is in all parts of the world

a better and more enlightened as well as a duller and more callous

public opinion, and the better opinion of a colony is powerfully reinforced

by judicious expression of feeling in the mother country.

There are occasions when that opinion should even be formally expressed

by the Colonial Office or by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Now, there is at present a deputation of South African Natives in this country

appealing against the ratification of the Natives' Land Act of 1913.

Mr. Harcourt has told them that he cannot interfere, nor can he

any more than if he were an ornamental registering clerk.

But he can if he chooses speak winged words to the South African Government,

which, having alienated the entire white working population,

is now exciting the same hostility among the blacks.

The Act itself probably has a deeper motive. It prevents

the sale of white men's land to the Natives or native land to the white men.

This would have the effect of securing to the Native

that very small portion of his own country which he has still managed

to retain. This probably commended the measure to those

who because they care for elementary justice are called negrophile,

the colour of justice in a white man's eyes being apparently black.

The other effect would be to prevent those Kafirs who are

becoming educated and rising in the social scale from acquiring land.

As in proportion to population the white man has by far the greater

amount of land, it is clear that he does not come badly out of the bargain.

However, it is not the Act itself of which the most serious complaint is made.

What makes matters worse is the interim arrangement that

pending the delimitation of native land by a Commission

no Native whose lease of land has expired shall be able to renew it

for a money rent or for any consideration whatever except labour service.

It is contended that farmers are taking advantage of this prohibition to exact

unpaid labour services from Natives, and are thus in effect reducing them

to serfdom. It is clear that the position in which the Native is placed

renders this only too possible, and it is an extraordinary thing

that any such violent alteration of status should be made

before instead of after the report of a Commission. For our part

we cannot believe that men like Generals Botha and Smuts deliberately desire

to reduce the Native to the condition of a semi-servile, landless labourer,

and we would venture on behalf of the many Liberals who fought steadily

for the right of South Africa to govern herself to appeal to them

to extend a similar consideration to the people of whose destinies

they have become responsible, and to suspend the operation of the Act

until the administrative preparations for carrying it out with equity

have been completed. -- `Manchester Guardian'.

==

==

VIEWS OF THE "STAR"

We have always realized that one of the gravest problems of self-government

in South Africa is the native question. On the one hand,

South African Colonial opinion -- by which is meant "white" opinion --

will bitterly resent any shadow of dictation from Downing Street;

on the other hand, the conscience of the British people cannot remain

indifferent to any flagrant oppression of or injustice to the native races

under the British flag. A very difficult question of this kind

is raised by the deputation of South African Natives,

which is now in this country, seeking to move the Colonial Office

on the subject of the Natives' Land Act recently passed by General Botha.

The ultimate object of General Botha's plan is the greatest exodus

since the days of Moses; it is apparently to get rid of black landholders

in areas in which the majority of the landowners are white,

and to buy up tracts of land elsewhere from white landowners, in order

to settle Natives upon them. In this way the black and the white races,

so far as landholding is concerned, will be segregated into separate areas,

with a reduction of possible cause of friction, and in some respects

this is an excellent policy. But the trouble is that General Botha

has passed the first part of his policy and has left the second part

to the future. The Land Act provides that hereafter,

"except with the approval of the Governor-General" -- which proviso

is mere leather and prunella -- a Native shall not buy or hire any land

from a person other than a Native. The effect of this is that

at the termination of any existing tenancy a Native will have

to relinquish his farm, and will not be able to hire or buy another

from any white owner. If the Government had provided farms

in the proposed native reserves for these men, their policy would be complete,

but nothing has been done, and the fulfilment of that promise depends upon

General Botha's continuance in office, and does not bind his successors.

It is not surprising the South African Natives regard this Act

as a means of driving them into the labour market either at the mines,

or for white farmers. Mr. Dower, the Secretary for Native Affairs,

addressing a meeting of Natives at Thaba Nchu, in the Free State,

gave a strong hint of this when he said: "My best advice to you

is to sell your stock and go into service." Here at home we hear a great deal

about the "magic of property" and the importance of giving the worker

an interest in the soil he tills; but in South Africa they apparently agree

with the southerner in the `Biglow Papers' that

Libbaty's a kind o' thing

Thet don't agree with niggers.

It is clear that it is the duty of the Colonial Office to guarantee,

in conjunction with the South African Government, the carrying out

of the full policy as outlined by General Botha, and we hope

occasion will be taken to urge action on these lines. -- `Star'.

==

==

CAN BRITAIN PREVENT SLAVERY

A question of great importance and a question which may easily strain

the links that bind the various parts of the Empire and the Mother Country,

has arisen in South Africa owing to the operation of the Natives' Land Act

passed last year by the Union Parliament. The Native question is by far

the greatest problem South Africa has to solve, and its difficulties

are so great that nobody has been able to advance any feasible scheme

for its settlement, though there have been many suggestions

as to the broad lines on which the matter may be settled.

The Land Act is an attempt to establish modified segregation --

i.e., confining the white man and the black to separate areas of the country.

It is by no means a well-thought-out nor a very practicable enactment,

and unfortunately has had the effect of greatly irritating the Natives

throughout the Union. The Natives do not think they are being treated fairly,

and have used every legitimate means to obtain a hearing.

These means, however, are exceedingly meagre, practically non-existent,

since they have no one to represent them, and as they have no vote

they can bring no pressure on Parliament. Having failed in South Africa,

they have sent a deputation to Great Britain, since, as they are

British subjects, they consider that Great Britain should look after them.

Arriving here, they find the Home Government cannot interfere

in the internal policy of a self-governing colony, and so are left

with no means of obtaining redress. It is surely impossible to admit

that Great Britain can do nothing for the mass of the native population,

although at the moment it appears to them that though

they are subjects of the King he cannot even hear their appeal,

and will do nothing for them, and has abandoned them, a state of affairs

which is quite incomprehensible to them and leads them to depend

solely on themselves to obtain redress -- and that way rebellion lies.

Britain is in an awkward position as she still has obligations

to secure justice to the Natives. If South Africa were to enact slavery,

would Britain still be able to do nothing to prevent it?

Ousting the Native

Surely Mr. Harcourt can suggest to the South African Government

the necessity of appointing a Commission to inquire into

the working of the Act, a Commission which would include Natives

as well as whites. That the Natives have a material grievance is certain.

The Act says that there shall be certain areas in which no Native

can own or lease land, and similarly areas in which no white

can own or lease land. That within a certain period the Natives owning land

in the white area must sell out, and when their leases run out

they shall not be renewed, similarly for the whites in the black area.

Now at present no black area has been delimited, and the Commission

performing this task will not report for a year or more;

meanwhile the blacks are being turned off the land and have nowhere to go.

The only course left to them is to hire themselves out as servants

to the white; and, in fact, that is the real object of the Act.

The farmers found that the Natives were acquiring land rapidly,

and working for themselves rather than for the white man.

There was a shortage of labour, and farmers wished to force the Natives

to work for them rather than for themselves. This ejection

with no other alternative is obviously most unfair, especially as

there are indications that the native areas will not be delimited

for a considerable time. The South Africans have always feared

a combined action of all the native tribes, but surely by this Act

they have chosen the simplest way of irritating every Native in South Africa.

This condition of affairs is exceedingly grave, and, though the results

are suppressed at present, there is no knowing what may happen

if the British Government, whom the Natives regard as their final

court of appeal, shows itself powerless. We know that the native question

in South Africa is terribly difficult, but it is an obvious course

to be pursued in order to maintain good relations between the two races

that grievances should be fairly heard and dealt with justly.

-- `Review of Reviews'.

==

Chapter XVIII The P.S.A. and Brotherhoods

The Brotherhood must help not only the spiritual part of life,

but also in social matters. They should always help the down-trodden,

showing the brotherly feeling which was portrayed throughout

the life of Christ.

Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, M.P.,

President of the Brotherhood Movement, at Weston-super-Mare.

In a previous chapter we mentioned a yellow-covered newspaper which

abused our English friends for supporting the appeal of the native deputation.

It characterized the advocacy of the aims of the deputation by the Brotherhood

as "Rubbish -- a commodity which can always be picked up,

and quite a lot of people spend much of their time in collecting it."

"Why," exclaims this paper with indignation, "we had imagined

that the `Brotherhood' movement was of a religious nature."

Our answer to this taunt is, that just because the Brotherhood movement

opposes the Natives' Land Act it must be religious,

for Anglican Bishops in South Africa have denounced this law

in their episcopal charges (vide `Church Chronicle', 1913, October issues),

and Anglican Bishops in South Africa are nothing if they are not religious.

Nonconformist Ministers have condemned this law in their annual

synods and conferences. Ex-Premier W. P. Schreiner, K.C., C.M.G.,

at present the London representative of the Union of South Africa,

is the son of an old South African missionary. He was member of

the Union Parliament when this law was passed and was one of the few senators

who had the pluck to vote against it after condemning it;

and it is monstrous to suggest that these pious and learned men

could conspire to denounce a law just for the pleasure of denouncing it.

And to our untutored mind it seems that if it be true that all these good men

are working for the spread of Christ's Kingdom in South Africa,

then we must be pardoned the inference that in the same country

protagonists of this Act are working for the establishment of another kingdom.

This inference grows into a belief when it is recalled that the men

who are responsible for the recent commotion are the very men

who forced this law upon the Government.

In the various reports of the South African Church Synods of 1915,

the character of this "Church closing" law stands out in bold relief,

and it is there revealed as an opponent of Christ and His work. Let us refer

to only one of them. "The native work of the (Transvaal) District

has been seriously hampered by the operation of the Natives' Land Act.

As the result of evictions under the Act, some of the Churches on farms

have ceased to exist." -- Cape `Methodist Churchman', Jan. 22, 1915.

The numerous South African opponents of this law had no share

in the recent upheaval, and the Brotherhoods by lending their platforms

to a campaign in opposition to a law that emanates from such a quarter

show that their cause, in addition to religion, is on the side of law,

order, and constitutional liberty. We know, of course,

that no doctrine of liberty would be acceptable in South Africa

that did not also imply "liberty to ill-treat the blacks".

Hence the Brotherhood propaganda, being colour-blind,

explains the fury of the London mouthpiece of "lily-white" South Africa.

Early in July the deputation called at the Brotherhood headquarters

in Norfolk Street, Strand, to explain to the National Brotherhood Council

the object of their mission. Mr. William Ward, the national secretary,

received the deputation in person; Mr. John McIntosh, secretary to

the London Federation, Mr. W. Mann and other officers being also present.

They invited the deputation to the Quarterly Meeting of the London Federation

at Bishopsgate on July 14, 1914, after which the deputation received

invitations to address meetings in various parts. Some of these engagements

still remain unfulfilled. A list of the centres visited is given

at the end of this chapter.

At the Bishopsgate gathering Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., was the "star turn".

He welcomed the deputation and regretted the cold reception accorded to it

by the Colonial Secretary. He added, however, that if they proceeded

along the same moderate lines followed by Dr. Rubusana and Mr. Msane

(the two members of the deputation who spoke that evening)

he felt certain that they would do more good for their cause in the country

than they did at the Colonial Office.

The `Brotherhood Journal', the newspaper organ of the movement said: --

==

Bear ye one another's Burdens

For Brotherhood men and women there can be only one response to their appeal.

For Brotherhood is not only between man and man, but between

nation and nation, and race and race.

In our movement, at any rate, there can be no colour bar to love and justice.

If our Brotherhoods did not rise to a cause like this, we might well question

the reality of their fraternal pretensions.

We are told that the problem has its difficulties. No doubt.

But they can be overcome, if only our statesmen will act

in a spirit of courage and faith. Surely empire means not only

privilege and power and glory, but also responsibility and obligations.

If it means only commercial profit, and injustice is to be done with impunity

under the Imperial flag,

Of what worth is such an Empire?

This is a matter in which every one of our members should exert

the force of opinion on the side of right. Let us open

to our coloured brothers' cause our platforms and our hearts.

The five members of the deputation will be in this country for some months,

and are prepared to address Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods,

and to send information as to their case to any who wish it.

We doubt not that they will find in our midst not only

a most sympathetic hearing, but active help in educating public opinion

in this country, in order that a great wrong may be righted.

==

How unlike so many poor attempts at brotherhood, organized in

the name of Christianity, especially in our part of the globe,

where "they have made the welkin ring with the sorrowful tale

of the unfortunate condition of the weak, but, like the rich man

in the parable, they liked their Lazarus afar off," and considered their

fraternal pretensions satisfied if they sent their dogs to lick his wounds.

No, the Brotherhood movement is no such parody. It is practical Christianity

which knows no distinction of colour or boundaries between nations.

Our nine months' association with Brother Martin and Brother Timberlake,

of the Shernhall Brotherhood, confirms this view; and our acquaintanceship

with other members of this wonderful movement (which counts

judges and members of Parliament as well as factory hands

among its office-bearers) satisfied the writer that they are always ready

to practise what they preach.

A noteworthy occasion in connexion with the campaign was our visit

to the Southall Brotherhood on Sunday, March 14. We can hardly

forget the day; it was on Crocus Sunday when thousands of Londoners

went to Hampton Court in crowds to see the crocus bulbs in bloom.

It was a glorious day and we remember it as the second day in 1915 on which

the European sun shone through a cloudless sky from sunrise to sunset.

Thousands of people attended at Hyde Park to witness the church parade,

and still more thousands took advantage of the glorious spring day

after a strenuous winter to flock to Epping Forest and other popular resorts.

In the afternoon we took part in an Imperial indoor demonstration

organized by the "Southall Men's Own" at the Central Hall.

Mr. William Cross of Hanwell represented England; Mr. T. Owens, F.C.I.S.,

represented Wales; Mr. S. S. A. Cambridge, a black barrister,

represented his homeland, British Guiana; Miss Ruth Bucknall, the celebrated

lyric soprano, who artistically contributed the solos, represented Australia;

while Scotland and the Emerald Isle were also represented

in the orchestra and elsewhere in the hall; Mr. and Mrs. Lionel Boote,

of Auckland, New Zealand, represented "the most English of the Colonies"

(unfortunately the Indian representative could not reach Southall in time),

and the writer represented South Africa, the baby member

of the British family.

Among such intellectual giants, one was inclined at the outset

to feel somewhat out of place, but thanks to the encouraging Brotherhood cheer

which always accompany their reception of a speaker, the stripling

soon finds himself at home, as is always the case on any Brotherhood platform,

and that was how we felt that day.

Mr. W. Cross said, in part, that one of the most striking proofs

of the unity of the Empire was shown in the splendid way

that men had come forward to assist the Mother Country

on the battlefields of Europe from all parts of our Dominions.

The coloured men from India had come as free men and fellow-subjects

to do their share. The Empire was composed of territories and people --

once separated by race and creed, now united under one flag.

There was a great resemblance between Brotherhood and Empire.

In it all kinds of religion were represented, yet all were united

in one great principle. It had been said the soul of Russia was pity,

of France reason, and of Britain justice. No Empire could be built to stand

unless based on justice and freedom. The principle of freedom underlay Empire

as it underlay Brotherhood also. There was no limit to the Empire

that was founded upon unity, toleration, justice, and liberty;

it surely had no end. Similarly there was no frontier

to the kingdom of Brotherhood, and they looked for a kingdom out-spanning

far beyond the roll of British drums -- the kingdom of Brotherhood --

the kingdom of Christ.

Referring to the limitations of colour in South Africa, Mr. Cambridge said:

"Have you no cattle and sheep in South Africa? Are there no birds?

Have you not observed that they are of different colours and yet are not

restricted in their flight on that account; and are you going to run counter

to the work of nature in regard to human beings? The British Empire

has a population of over 430,000,000, of which less than 100,000,000

are white, and there was a big problem to solve: `How to rule

with justice and equity this great multitude of various races and creeds

and consolidate them as fellow-subjects of one great and mighty Empire.'

The future of the British Empire could be secured by following

the high ideals of `Brotherhood' which were foreshadowed by Christ

in the Bible, and by great writers such as Shakespeare and Addison.

The fall of Rome was due to her failure to recognize the duty

of welding her subjects together as brothers one and all

under the Fatherhood of God. . . ."