Sir William M'Arthur, M.P., said:--

"I have never seen in the Mansion House a larger or more enthusiastic meeting, and I believe that the feeling which animates this meeting is animating the whole country. Any course of action taken by Her Majesty's Ministers towards the Transvaal will be very closely watched. I myself am for peace, but I am also for that which maintains peace, viz., a firm and decided policy."

The poor Chief, Mankoroane, having heard that the Transvaal Delegates would discuss questions of vital importance to his people, left Bechua.n.a.land and went as far as Cape Town on his way to England to represent his case there. Lord Derby, however, sent him word that he could not be admitted to the Conference in London, where the ownership of his own country was to be discussed. Mankoroane then begged Mr.

Mackenzie to be his representative, but was again told that neither personally nor by representative could he be recognised at the Conference in Downing Street, but that any remarks which Mr. Mackenzie might make on his behalf would receive the attention of Government.

(Blue Book 3841, 92.)

The first and great question which the Transvaal Delegates desired to settle in their own interests was that of the Western boundary line, amended by themselves, which was represented on a map. They were informed that their amended treaty was "neither in form nor in substance such as Her Majesty's Government could adopt," there being "certain Chiefs who had objected, on behalf of their people, to be included in the Transvaal, and there being a strong feeling in London in favour of the independence of these natives, or (if they, the natives, desired it) of their coming under British rule." There was now brought before the delegates a map showing the addition of land which was eventually granted to the Transvaal, but the delegates would not agree to any such arrangement. Her Majesty's Government were giving away to them some 2,600 square miles of native territory, concerning which there was no clear evidence that its owners wished to be joined to the Transvaal. But this was nothing to the Transvaal demand, as shown by a map which they put in, and which included an _additional_ block of 4,000 square miles.

Not finding agreement with the Government possible, the delegates then turned from that position, and took up the question of the remission of the debt which the Transvaal owed to England, saying that the wishes of the native chiefs should be consulted first about the boundary line.

This was a bold stroke; they were professing to be representing the interests of certain chiefs, which was not the case.

Lord Derby telegraphed to the Cape on the 27th of Feb. 1884, the result of the protracted labours of the Conference at Downing Street, mentioning:--"British Protectorate established outside the Transvaal, with Delegates' consent. Debt reduced to quarter of a million."[17] To many persons it seems that the Convention of 1884, rather than the Convention of 1881, was the real blunder. It is remarkable, however, as ill.u.s.trating the small attention which South African affairs then received, that no party controversy was aroused over this later instrument. Very soon afterwards, however, the question became acute, owing to the action of Mr. Kruger; and then, it must be remembered, that Mr. Gladstone did not hesitate to appeal to the armed strength of the Empire in order to defend British interests and prevent the extension of Boer rule. That there was not war in 1884 was due only to the fact that Mr. Kruger at that time did not choose to fight. The raiders and filibusters were put down before by Sir Charles Warren's force, but Mr.

Gladstone had taken every precaution in view of the contingency of a collision.

The conditions laid down in the Convention did not satisfy the Delegates, although they formally a.s.sented to them. Their disappointment began to be strongly manifested. They had stoutly denied that slavery existed in their country. This denial was challenged by the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society, who brought forward some very awkward testimonies and facts of recent date. It was suggested that President Kruger should for ever silence the calumniators by demanding a Commission of enquiry on this subject which would take evidence within and round the Transvaal as they might see fit. The Delegates took good care not to accept this challenge. The firmness of the British Government at that moment was fully justified by the actual facts of the case which came so strikingly before them, and their att.i.tude was supported by public opinion, so far as this public opinion in England then existed. It was the Transvaal deputation itself which had most effectually developed it when they first arrived in London, though it was known they had many friends, and that numbers of the public were generally quite willing to consider their claims.[18] They sat for three months in conference with members of Her Majesty's Government before coming to any decision. That decision was known as the London Convention of 1884.

The displeasure of the Boer Delegates matured after their return to the Transvaal, and was expressed in a message sent by the Volksraad to our Government not many months after the signing of the Convention in London.

In this doc.u.ment the Boers seem to regard themselves as a victorious people making terms with those they had conquered. It is interesting to note the articles of the Convention to which they particularly object.

In the telegram which was sent to "His Excellency, W.E. Gladstone," the Volksraad stated that the London Convention was not acceptable to them.

They declared that "modifications were desirable, and that certain articles _must_ be altered." They attached importance to the Native question, declaring that "the Suzerain (Great Britain) has not the right to interfere with their Legislature, and that they cannot agree to article 3, which gives the Suzerain a voice concerning Native affairs, nor to article 13, by virtue of which Natives are to be allowed to acquire land, nor to that part of Article 26, by which it is provided that white men of a foreign race living in the Transvaal shall not be taxed in excess of the taxes imposed on Transvaal citizens."

It should be observed here that this reference to unequal and excessive taxation of foreigners in the Transvaal, pointing to a tendency on the part of the Boers to load foreigners with unjust taxation, was made before the development of the goldfields and the great influx of Uitlanders.

The Message of the Volksraad was finally summed up in the following words: "we object to the following articles, 15, 16, 26, and 27, because to insist on them is hurtful to our sense of honour." (sic.)

Now what are the articles to which the Boer Government here objects, and has continued to object?

Article 15 enacts that _no slavery or apprenticeship shall be tolerated_.

Article 16 provides for religious toleration (for Natives and all alike.)

Article 26 provides for the free movement, trading, and residence of all persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the Transvaal.

Article 27 gives to all, (Natives included,) the right of free access to the Courts of Justice.

Putting the "sense of honour" of the Transvaal Volksraad out of the question, past experience had but too plainly proved that these Articles were by no means superfluous.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 16: "Austral Africa, Ruling it or Losing it," p. 157.]

[Footnote 17: When the Transvaal was annexed, in 1877, the public debt of that country amounted to 301,727. "Under British rule this debt was liquidated to the extent of 150,000, but the total was brought up by a Parliamentary grant, a loan from the Standard Bank, and sundries to 390,404, which represented the public debt of the Transvaal on the 31st December, 1880. This was further increased by monies advanced by the Standard Bank and English Exchequer during the war, and till the 8th August, 1881, (during which time the country yielded no revenue,) to 457,393. To this must be added an estimated sum of 200,000 for compensation charges, pension allowances, &c., and a further sum of 383,000, the cost of the successful expedition against Secocoemi, that of the unsuccessful one being left out of account, bringing up the total public debt to over a million, of which about 800,000 was owing to this country. This sum the Commissioners (Sir Evelyn Wood dissenting) reduced by a stroke of the pen to 265,000, thus entirely remitting an approximate sum of 500,000 or 600,000. To the sum of 265,000 still owing must be added say another 150,000 for sums lately advanced to pay the compensation claims, bringing up the actual amount owing to England to about a quarter of a million."--Report of a.s.sistant Secretary to the British Agent for Native Affairs. (Blue Book 3917, 46.)]

[Footnote 18: "Austral Africa." Mackenzie.]

VI.

THE CAREER AND RECALL OF SIR BARTLE FRERE. UNFORTUNATE EFFECT IN SOUTH AFRICA OF PARTY SPIRIT IN POLITICS AT HOME. DEATH OF SIR BARTLE FRERE. THE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND LAW.

HOPE FOR SOUTH AFRICA IF THESE ARE MAINTAINED AND OBSERVED. WORDS OF MR. GLADSTONE ON THE COLONIZING SPIRIT OF ENGLISHMEN.

The case of Sir Bartle Frere ill.u.s.trates forcibly the inexpediency of allowing our party differences at home to sow the seeds of discord in a distant Colony, and the apparent injustices to which such action may give rise.

While in England Sir Bartle Frere was being censured and vilified, in South Africa an overwhelming majority of the colonists, of whatever race or origin, were declaring, in unmistakable terms, that he had gained their warmest approbation and admiration. Town after town and village after village poured in addresses and resolutions in different forms, agreeing in enthusiastic commendation of him as the one man who had grasped the many threads of the South African tangle, and was handling them so as to promise a solution in accordance with the interests of all the many and various races which inhabited it.

"In our opinion," one of these resolutions (from Cradock) says, "his Excellency, Sir Bartle Frere, is one of the best Governors, if not the best Governor, this Colony has ever had, and the disasters which have taken place since he has held office, are not due to any fault of his, but to a shameful mismanagement of public affairs before he came to the Colony, and the state of chaos and utter confusion in which he had the misfortune to find everything on his arrival; and we are therefore of opinion that the thanks of every loyal colonist are due to his Excellency for the herculean efforts he has since made under the most trying circ.u.mstances to South Africa...."[19]

Another, from Kimberley says:--"It has been a source of much pain to us that your Excellency's policy and proceedings should have been so misunderstood and misrepresented.... The time, we hope, is not far distant when the wisdom of your Excellency's native policy and action will be as fully recognized and appreciated by the whole British nation as it is by the colonists of South Africa."[20]

At Pretoria, the capital of the Transvaal, a public meeting was held (April 24th), which resolved that:--

"This meeting reprobates most strongly the action of a certain section of the English and Colonial Press for censuring, without sufficient knowledge of local affairs, the policy and conduct of Sir B. Frere; and it desires not only to express its sympathy with Sir B. Frere and its confidence in his policy, but also to go so far as to congratulate most heartily Her Majesty the Queen, the Home Government, and ourselves, on possessing such a true, considerate, and faithful servant as his Excellency the High Commissioner."

A public dinner also was given to Sir B. Frere at Pretoria, at which his health was drunk with the greatest enthusiasm; there was a public holiday, and other rejoicings.

Sir Bartle Frere was intending to go to Bloemfontein, in the

Orange Free State, to visit President Brand, with whom he was on cordial terms, and with whom he wished to talk over his plans for the Transvaal; but instructions came from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to proceed to Cape Town. He therefore left Pretoria on May 1st. He was welcomed everywhere with the utmost cordiality and enthusiasm. At Potchefstroom there was a public dinner and a reception. On approaching Bloemhof he was met by a large cavalcade, and escorted into the township, where a triumphal arch had been erected, and an address was presented.

"At Kimberley he had been sworn in as Governor of Griqualand West.

Fifteen thousand people, it was estimated, turned out to meet and welcome him. From thence to Cape Town his journey was like a triumphal progress, the population at each place he pa.s.sed through receiving him in flag-decorated streets, with escorts, triumphal arches, illuminations, and addresses. At Worcester, where he reached the railway, there was a banquet, at which Sir Gordon Sprigg was also present. At Paarl, which was the head-quarters of the Dutch Afrikander league, and where some of the most influential Dutch families live, a similar reception was given him. Finally, at Cape Town, where, if anywhere, his policy was likely to find opponents among those who regarded it from a provincial point of view, the inhabitants of all cla.s.ses and sections and of whatever origin, gave themselves up to according him a reception such as had never been surpa.s.sed in Capetown.

"In England, complimentary local receptions and addresses to men in high office or of exalted rank do not ordinarily carry much meaning. Party tactics and organization account for a proportion of such manifestations. But the demonstration on this occasion cannot be so explained. There was no party organization to stimulate it. It was too general to confer notoriety on any of its promoters, and Sir B. Frere had not personally the power, even if he had had the will, to return compliments. And what made it the more remarkable was that there was no special victory or success or event of any kind to celebrate."[21]

On reaching Cape Town, a telegraphic message was handed to him, preparing him for his recall, by the statement that Sir H. Bulwer was to replace him as High Commissioner of the Transvaal, Natal, and all the adjoining eastern portion of South Africa, and that he was to confine his attention for the present to the Cape Colony.

To deprive him of his authority as regarded Natal, Zululand, the Transvaal--the Transvaal, which almost by his single hand and voice he had just saved from civil war--and expressly to direct Colonel Lanyon to cease to correspond with him, was to discredit a public servant before all the world at the crisis of his work.

Sir Bartle Frere's great object had been to bring about a Confederation of all the different States and portions of South Africa, an object with which the Home Government was in sympathy.

What was wanting to bring about confederation was confidence, founded on the permanent pacification and settlement of Zululand, the Transvaal, the Transkei, Pondoland, Basutoland, West Griqualand, and the border generally. How could there, under these circ.u.mstances, be confidence any longer? There was no doubt what he had meant to do. By many a weary journey he had made himself personally known throughout South Africa.

His aims and intentions were never concealed, never changed. In confederating under his superintendence all men knew what they were doing. But he was now to be superseded. Was his policy to be changed, and how?[22]

It was expected by the political majority in England that as soon as Mr.

Gladstone came into power, Sir Bartle Frere, whose policy had been so strongly denounced, would be at once recalled. When the new Parliament met in May, the Government found many of their supporters greatly dissatisfied that this had not been done. Notice of motion was given of an address to the Crown, praying for Sir B. Frere's removal. Certain members of parliament met together several times at the end of May, and a memorial to Mr. Gladstone was drawn up, which was signed by about ninety of them, and sent to him on June 3rd, to the following effect:--

"To the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, M.P., First Lord of the Treasury."

"We the undersigned, members of the Liberal party, respectfully submit that as there is a strong feeling throughout the country in favour of the recall of Sir Bartle Frere, it would greatly conduce to _the unity of the party and relieve many members from the charge of breaking their pledges to their const.i.tuents if_ that step were taken."[23]

The first three signatures to this doc.u.ment were those of L.L. Dillwyn, Wilfrid Lawson, and Leonard Courtney.