England and South Africa

Front matter

PHIXTKI) BY sroniswooui; ANU CO., nkw-stiiebt square LONJJON BY EDW. J. GIBBS, M.A. LONDON LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO. AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16 h STREET 1889 .1// rights res er red DEDICATED BY PERMISSION TO ALEX. JAS. MACDONALD, ESQ. London : August 16, 1889. Dear Mr. Macdonald, I have to thank you for your permission to dedicate this book to you. Your knowledge of South Africa, and your long residence in and travels through the Cape Colony and Natal, have enabled you to provide me with many hints and criticisms. I do not pretend to have written from materials collected by my own travel and observation. All that I have attempted is to give a general history of the main features of our policy and conduct, especially since the abolition of slavery and the ' trekking ' of the Boers. But I believe that this resume will be found useful.

Events pass so rapidly that even those of ten years ago are forgotten by the ordinary reader, or only recollected in a hazy sort of way. For this reason, and because of the importance of the subject, you thought that a new com pendium, which should take a general review, would be desirable. There can be no doubt but that the general interest in South Africa is due to the gold discoveries, as was the case in Australia and California. But I do not regard the gold-mining industry as the greatest or the most useful. I remain, dear Mr. Macdonald, Yours faithfully, EDWARD J. GIBBS. Alex. Jab. Macdonald, Esq.

Preface

In the following pages I have endeavoured to give an impartial account of the progress of Great Britain in South Africa. Unhappily it is impossible to be impartial without being severe. Men of English descent have indeed raised the Cape Colony and Natal from very small beginnings to prosperity and yearly increasing success. This has been done in the face of many and severe trials. On the one hand, we had to contend with the Boers, a population of European origin and language, who were then many times more numerous than our own colonists, sullen in temper, sore with defeat, and above all fanatically attached to the heaven-appointed institution of slavery. On the other hand was a vast native population, for the most part brave, vigorous and determined, eager to preserve their lands from spoliation and themselves from enforced labour, but withal treacherous and bloodthirsty.

It speaks well for the vigour of the English race that we should, so far, not only have held our own but have advanced with rapid strides in material and moral prosperity. But the praise that is due to the British settler must be withheld from the British Government. We boast of our Colonial Empire. It is the out-come and the growth of individual effort and private association. For many years the British Govern ment seems to have been doing all it could to hamper, to harass, and to alienate our colonies, and to have used one stereotyped reply to all complaints : ' You may go whenever you please,' The Romans of old boasted that it was their mission ENGLAND AND SOUTH AFRICA parcere subjectis et debelloure superbos. Our mission, under the guidance of the parochial economists called Ministers for the Colonies, has been to submit meekly to defeat, to throw all re sponsibility on the colonists themselves, to refuse protectorates, and abandon conquests.

It was not the British Government that conquered India, or annexed the vast territories in the North- West of America. And in the same way it will appear that our treatment of the Cape Colony and South Africa has been so mean, so niggardly, and so unwise as to have created a strong party which seems to be watching for some more congenial alliance. In a hundred years Gaul was conquered by the Romans, and completely Latinised. In a hundred years at the Cape we have not advanced one step beyond two opposing languages, nationalities and policies. What is worse, many of our own people openly side with the Dutch, and pursue an anti- English policy. The Cape Government of to-day is dominated by the Boer faction. But though we rule almost in spite of ourselves, though we carry the principle of laissez faire to the most absurd extremes, though our connection with the colonies is personal and commercial rather than national, yet perhaps even a British Government may recognise the fact of pecuniary loss as well as the loss of power and influence.

In the following pages I have described too briefly and with too little indignation the surrender made to the Boers of the Transvaal. But I have not shown sufficiently the baneful effects of this cowardly policy. In 1881, after the battle of Majuba Hill, Mr. Gladstone shielded his surrender under the plea of an aversion to blood-shed. It is more probable that his chief thought was for his budget, and his fixed resolve to sacrifice any part of the Empire rather than ask money for its defence. In 1884 there was even less excuse, and the treaty with the rebel Boers appears to have been merely the result of a wish to get rid of as much of our Colonial Empire as could possibly be alienated at once. Even Lord Derby, who was by no means a successful Minister for the Colonies, declared

PREFACE.

IX that he had been compelled to concede to the Transvaal deputies much more than he approved of. Who compelled him ? He was master of the Colonial Office, but he was not the autocrat of Great Britain. It can only have been Mr. Gladstone's wishes and resolves that coerced Lord Derby into the second, the absolutely needless, the absolutely purposeless, surrender of 1884. But perhaps I should scarcely say purposeless, for very probably there was a distinct purpose to get rid of the Trans vaal altogether. And what is it that we have endeavoured to throw away ? Probably the richest tract of land in the whole world. The British public, including the residents in Cape Colony and Natal, as well as the shareholders in London, have invested about twenty millions in the Transvaal, and the present market value of the gold shares is perhaps more nearly forty millions.

The population is now, as always, divided into European and native. Ten years ago there were four Europeans of Dutch origin for one of English. Now there are more than three English for two Boers. Yet the English have no votes, no control over the finances, no share in the rapidly growing surplus of revenue. As the law stands at present all residents for more than five years have a right to vote, and if that law remains we shall as certainly see an English party in the Transvaal as we now see a Dutch party in the Cape. But the President suggests that a residence of fifteen years shall be necessary, and so hopes to secure his power for an indefinite term. In the Cape we give the disloyal Boers the same rights of voting as we give to men of British race. In the Transvaal we allow the rebel Boers to make laws for Englishmen who are the most numerous of the European residents, the owners of three-fourths of the property, the builders of the chief towns, the bankers and merchants, the capitalists who are willing to build railways and develop the resources of the country.

And what do the Boers owe to us ? Everything ; their very existence, and all their prosperity. X ENGLAND AND SOUTH AFRICA When we interfered for their help, they were not only utterly bankrupt, but they were defeated beyond hope of recovery by the Basutos. We restored to them security, we brought in riches, we built their towns, we paid enormous prices for their land, we developed mines which, in their hands, might have remained untouched for centuries. In July 1886, the town Johannesberg did not exist ; its public office was a small canvas tent, and its officials three government servants. In 1887, the Transvaal Government received from the local revenue alone 131,9692., as the income from the digging community round the town. In December 1886, the customs dues at Johannesberg were 2651. In November 1887, they were 8,7522.

They are immensely larger now. And although the attention of the British public is just now concentrated on the Witwatersrand, there is every reason to believe that the De Kaap district will also improve. Mr. Charles Cowen, in a short pamphlet, published at Johannesberg, says : ' The circumstances which have depressed Barberton — ' and in using that name we indicate the industrial area of which ' Barberton may be considered the centre — we need not consider, ' for they arose less from any want of intrinsic worth in the mines ' than from events which were made to operate against their ' success for the time being.' But I have intended that this book should refer less to financial prospects than to political considerations. It will, I think, be clear that the surrender of the Transvaal was a blunder of the worst kind, but for us the question is : ' How can that blunder be repaired ? ' It is tolerably clear that, at the end of 1883, the Transvaal Government had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Gladstone would complete his work by a grant of absolute independence.

It was then proposed to place the country under a German or Dutch protectorate, to unite with the Dutch party in the Cape, to obtain possession of Bechuanaland and all the territory from Namaqualand on the West to Natal, and practically to drive the

PREFACE.

XI British out of South Africa. Indeed, this was an open and frequent boast of the malcontents. But the deputation sent to Europe to secure these results was not entirely successful. The wealth of the Transvaal had become apparent. Mr. Gladstone was willing to grant a great measure of ' home rule ' but not to withdraw altogether. Prince Bismarck was not inclined to embroil himself with England, and the United States and Holland, to which States, as well as to Russia, the Transvaal delegates were accredited, would have none of their schemes. Much as we surrendered it was less than had been expected. The pressing question now is the return of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free State to the condition of British provinces, and the further development of South Africa by railways and settlements.

The German schemes of rivalry are probably less cherished than they were. Prince Bismarck has discovered that his consuls and representatives abroad have behaved with great indiscretion. An attempt on Damaraland was brought to signal grief by the determined preference of the chief for the protection of England rather than of Germany. It needs now only a firm and determined policy on our side to secure the predominance in South Africa. May we hope that at length such a policy will be adopted ? The first step is to insist that British in habitants of the Transvaal shall have equal rights of voting and representation with the Boers. The next is to insist upon such concessions as will bring railways direct from Cape Town and Natal to Pretoria and Barberton. The third is to inaugurate a more vigorous and continuous policy in the countries not yet settled completely, in Swazieland, Bechuanaland, Damaraland.

There is work enough here for Lord Knutsford, work of which the reward is likely to be greater than we have yet reaped from any of our colonies. With a settled government, all these countries would afford splendid fields for emigration, and it seems probable that nearly all are as rich in minerals as they are fertile for agriculture. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. SOUTH AFRICA ......... I II. THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE . . . . . . . 12 III. THE TRANSVAAL ........ 24 IV. NATAL . . . . . . . . . . 47 V. THE NATIVE STATES ....... 5.5 VI. ZULULAND AND BECHUANA . . . . . . 63 VII. MADAGASCAR . . . . . . . . .77 VIII. ZANZIBAR . . . . . . . . . 84 IX. THE LAKE DISTRICT ....... 94 X. THE LATEST NEWS ........ 1(16 CONCLUSION 1211 APPENDICES ......... Errata Page 21, line 29, for Charles read George. „ 48, „ 29, „ of „ through. „ 5.S, „ 27, „ Bishoff „ Boshof. ,, GO, „ 8, „ Twine „ Irvine. „ C2, „ 3, „ Thuron „ Theron. „ 88, „ 34, „ Pasha „ Khedive.

Chapter I South Africa

The various questions connected with our possessions, influence, and prospects in South and Central Africa deserve a more com plete investigation than has yet been given to them. We have to deal directly with a white population, in the Colonies, of more than two millions, and with a coloured population, in countries where our control is acknowledged, of, perhaps, ten millions. Indirectly we have to deal with a population nearly as large as that of British India, a population which is estimated at not less than two hundred millions. From this population the slave dealers have drawn for many years nearly all their supplies, and this matter alone evokes English interest and sympathy. Again, it is found that the African natives, brutal, bloodthirsty, and demoralised as they have been, are yet amenable to Christian teaching and example.

The progress of Christianity is more steady and more rapid in South Africa than in India, and would be still more marked but for the fact that some European Powers represent our religion under the form of adulterated spirits, slavery, and gunpowder. Add to these considerations the fact that gold, diamonds, copper, and other minerals are found in profusion, and that Germany, Portugal, and France are pressing forward claims wherever we have neglected to raise our flag, and it will be seen that the South African question deserves the most careful study and the consideration of our ablest statesmen. I propose to consider some of the more important matters -B connected with British rule in South Africa. I wish to examine its past history, present position, and future prospects. The past history is a melancholy record of imbecility, vacillation, cowardice, and parsimony.

The present position will disclose difficulties and complications for which we have only ourselves to thank. The future will depend on our adopting, or declining to adopt, a dignified, persistent, and imperial policy. It will be seen that our treatment of South Africa is only an extreme example of our colonial policy in general. The people of this country are proud of our Colonies, and attached to them. They have sons and daughters, brothers and sisters struggling or thriving there. They do not think chiefly of trade, but look upon the Colonies as a fortunate extension of the narrow limi.s of these islands. But in our policy as a Government a different spirit may be discovered. It is impossible to read the history of the present century without coming to the conclusion that most of our Administrations, and especially those which professed Liberal principles, have regarded the Colonies without favour.

The example of the settlements in North America taught us that it was impolitic to ask for any contribution to the imperial revenue. From this fact men jumped to the further conclusion that colonies were of comparatively little value. Thus the ' Ency- ' clopædia Britannica ' says in its article on colonies, ** Many ' indeed argue that for both sides it would be better that the ' inter-dependent relation should be totally sundered, and each ' colony, as soon as possible, left to shift for itself. The trade of ' neither party, it is alleged, gains anything by the maintenance ' of the connection ; the European State is exposed to needless ' risk in time of war by her responsibility to her scattered de- ' pendencies, and to additional expense in providing against that ' risk ; while the colonies are liable to be dragged into wars with ' which they have no concern.' The writer of the article does not attempt to meet these arguments, and by his silence approves of them.

The ' National Encyclopædia ' writes as follows : ' Setting aside the interests of those concerned in the ' administration of the Colonies, it is asked what advantao-e does ' the rest of the nation receive ? So far as some colonies mav ' be desirable ports for protecting British commerce and shipping, ' the advantage of maintaining them may be fully equal to the ' expense. But, in every particular instance, the real question ' as to the value of a colony to the mother country is simply this : ' What advantage is this said colony to the productive classes of ' the country ? A question not always easy to answer. But this ' is the question the solution of which must decide whether a ' colony should be maintained or not, if we look only to the ' interests of the mother country. If some advantage cannot be ' shown, the maintenance of a useless colony is a pure act of ' national benevolence to that colony, and to those few of the ' mother country who have places or property in it.' This is the sort of political teaching to which our fathers were exposed.

It was held that the value of a colony could only be expressed in money, and that since we levy no tribute we derive no gain. The pestilent heresy was loudly proclaimed that our trade would be just as large and as profitable if our colonies became independent, or were even absorbed by Foreign Powers. It has therefore happened that, while the people of Great Britain have become, year by year, more attached to the Colonies, the Governments of Great Britain have rather aimed at repudiation of control and responsibility. I have thought it worth while to introduce these general remarks because they will be found to have a particular appli cation. But I will leave generalities and confine myself to South Africa. Fifty years ago, nay, even thirty-five years ago, it was in our power to have assumed the protectorate of South Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Zanzibar, and from Madagascar to Loango.

Our mere proclamation would have preserved us from interference, for it is a settled principle of the international law of Europe, that what one European government has once claimed in uncivilised countries shall be left to that government until the claim is renounced. Besides this, we must remember that thirty or forty years ago Germany and France had little ambition for colonial empire. France, indeed, had quite enough to do with Algeria, and neither country had yet cast covetous eyes on South Africa. b We first entered the Cape of Good Hope in 1793 as a possession obtained by conquest. The people had been cruelly treated by the Dutch East India Company, and their trade subjected to grievous monopolies and restrictions. These mo nopolies and restrictions we at once swept away. To the con quered Dutch we conceded the full and free use of their laws, customs, and language, and we undertook that no new taxes should be imposed.

And on behalf of this country we may boldly say this, that whatever faults of indecision or caprice we may have committed, we have usually treated the conquered with indulgence, and, since the abolition of slavery, the natives with kindness. By the Treaty of Amiens the Cape Colony was restored to the Dutch in 1803, but, when war broke out again in 1806, it was re-taken by Great Britain, under whose rule it has since remained. We have been so much dazzled of late years by the discoveries of gold, diamonds, and copper, that we are apt to forget that the great recommendation of the country to our prede cessors was its agricultural resources. In 1817 the Governor, Lord Charles Somerset, visited the districts between the Sunday and the Fish Rivers, and wrote home as follows : ' Here is, ' indeed, a very fine country on which to employ and maintain ' a multitude of settlers.

This tract, particularly healthy for " cattle and sheep, well wooded and having many fine springs in ' it, is nearly uninhabited.' In 1819 a war was commenced by the Kaffirs, and on their defeat and retirement Lord Charles Somerset proposed a scheme of emigration. The British Govern ment approved the scheme. Fifty thousand pounds were voted by the House of Commons, and in 1820 5,000 emigrants were sent out. So anxious were people to emigrate that, although each head of a household was required to deposit 10Z. before starting, there were no fewer than 90,000 applicants. In 1806 the population of the Cape Colony was about 74,000, of whom 27,000 were Europeans, 18,000 Hottentots, and 29,000 slaves. The present population is about one and a quarter millions. In 1833 slavery was finally abolished, much to the disgust of the Boers, who forthwith began to seek ' fresh ' fields and pastures new,' where their peculiar views as to the appropriation of the persons and lands of the natives might be more easily carried into practice.

They colonised Natal and the Orange River Territories. In Natal they kept up a constant warfare with the Kaffirs, whom they sought to reduce to slavery. Their career was checked by the Governor of the Cape, who took military possession of Natal in 1843, and in 1856 it was declared a separate colony. For the same reasons the Orange River Territory was occupied by the Boers, and (for the same reason) taken by the British. It was declared a colony in 1848, and of course the Boers were again enraged by the prohibition of slavery. If the same policy had been continuously followed by the British Government the Boers might have ' trekked ' to the Equator ; and, so far as Great Britain followed them, slavery would have ceased, and the seizure of native lands and cattle would have been prohibited. This brings us to the year 1853, with which the modern history of South Africa may be said to have commenced.

In the be ginning of that year the British authority had been proclaimed wherever the white man had penetrated, and a protectorate might have been declared over the whole of South Africa with out let or hindrance from any European Power. Such a declaration would have been held valid, even although many years should elapse before our actual occupation. But Dis oilier visum. In 1853 the ministry of Lord Aberdeen came into power, with Mr. Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was called a coalition ministry, not because it included the Tories, but because it united the Peelites and the Whigs. This ministry drifted into the Crimean War, and set the first example of contracting the limits of the Empire. We began with the Orange River sovereignty. We informed the people of that territory that they would no longer be British subjects, but might form a free State for themselves.

Our proposals were received with alarm, almost with despair. A powerful tribe, the Basutos, threatened the very existence of the State. The Boers knew that their injustice, robbery, and cruelty had made them hateful to the native tribes, and they were terrified at the thought that our protection would be withdrawn. The people of Grahamstown met and adopted the following petition to the Queen : ' That your petitioners have read with equal sorrow and ■ dismay the dispatch addressed by your Majesty's Right Honour ' able Secretary of State, in which an intention is expressed on ' the part of your Majesty's Government to withdraw the autho ' rity hitherto exercised over the Orange River sovereignty. ' They humbly submit that they cannot legally be shut out from ' the pale of the realm, nor can the allegiance they owe to your ' Majesty be set aside on the plea of expediency, and in the face ' of their deliberately recorded dissent.' To this appeal Lord Aberdeen's ministry gave no heed.

A sum of 5,000L was given to the new Republic to start with, instead of the 20,000L they asked for, and the country was cast adrift. It was probably thought that our continued rule might involve us in expenses and interfere with Mr. Gladstone's popular budget. The irony of events is very marked. The very next year, early in 1851, gold and diamonds were discovered in this very State, and copper was said to be procurable from the surface, and in waggon-loads. It will be strange to find, said a Cape newspaper, that ' the country which has so lately been discarded as ' worthless may yet prove to be richer than any other appendage ' of her Majesty's possessions.' In 1856 Sir George Grey, who was then Governor at the Cape, advised the local parliament to provide 200,000L for the purpose of emigration.

He said : ' With a very large practical ' acquaintance with the Continent of Australia, I can now, after ' having visited so great a portion of South Africa, unhesitatingly ' state that this country affords at least equal advantages to ' European immigrants. In some respects, indeed, the Cape of ' Good Hope holds out greater advantages than any other colony. ** Its rewards for labour are equal, and its social and moral posi ' tion superior.' The sum proposed was voted by the Cape Parliament by a majority of twenty-two to fourteen, and was ordered to be issued in sums of 50,000/., and we find that in March 1862 the thirty-second free emigration ship left London at the colonial expense, under this Act of 1857, the operation of which added nearly ten thousand souls to the population of the colony.

The fears entertained by the Orange Free State when its dependence on Great Britain was repudiated were very natural, and were proved to have some foundation in fact. The Boers of that State attacked the Basutos in 1858 and were defeated. In their distress they applied to Sir George Grey, who was then Governor of the Cape Colony, to mediate for them. Sir George Grey, having obtained the consent of the Cape Parliament, went to arrange a peace. It was generally believed in Cape Town that the Free State would be utterly ruined, and that the Kaffirs would accept no terms except the extinction of the Boers. At the same time we are told that ' the Kaffirs have a wholesome ' dread of the British power, and have been observed in this ' struggle to respect British property, aud to carefully abstain ' from giving offence to the British Government.' The following note was forwarded to England and printed by ' The Times ' on September 24, 1858 : 'It is now confessed both by those who ' are favourable to the British Government and those who are ' adverse, that the only hope for the future safety, nay, for the ' very existence, of the Free State, consists in its re-union with ' the parent colony.

It is felt and acknowledged that the syste ' viatic want of cjood faith practised towards the natives has pro ' duced this melancholy state of things, and that the prestige of ' British rule, which still conveys to the native mind the idea of ' good faith, can alone restore confidence and prosperity.' When Sir George Grey returned and opened the Cape Parliament, on March 17, 1859, he congratulated the colony on the proceedings of the first parliament, at whose request he had mediated between the Orange Free State and the Basuto chief, Moshesh. He enjoyed the confidence of both parties, and had succeeded in negotiating peace on a permanent basis. Alarmed by this difficulty, the Orange Free State solicited a Federal union with the Cape. Sir George Grey took up the idea and carried it further.

He proposed a union of all the states, Colonial, Free, and Native, under the British Crown. The proposal was received with enthusiasm. Dispatches were received from Downing Street, which appeared to regard the scheme with favour. In his opening speech in the Cape Parlia ment the Governor dwelt upon the subject in the most emphatic manner. Eleven days afterwards, in August 1859, dispatches were received from Lord Derby completely and authoritatively disallowing the policy to which Sir George Grey had been com mitted, and ordering his immediate resignation and return. This treatment of the South African question is worthy of notice. When the Boers and the English residents were equally in favour of confederation the British Government abruptly put a stop to the scheme. This was in 1859. Nine years later the British Government, as represented by the Colonial Secretary, Lord Carnarvon, earnestly recommended confederation and found that it was too late.

In 1865 the Orange Free State decreed that after January 1, 1866, no foreign bank or branch thereof should be permitted to exist in the State. This order was directed against the London banks which had branches in the Cape. In the same year war was declared against the Free State by the Basutos under their chief Moshesh who declared that he did not wish to make war against England. ' He did not wish to fight with the Queen or ' any of her Majesty's subjects, but only to protect his people ' from the aggression of the Free State Government.' A treaty of peace was made in June 1866, but the next year, 1867, war broke out again. A Cape newspaper reports that ' Some of the ' burghers admit that the Basutos have not enough space to live ' in. They think it a great mistake to occupy land beyond ' Caledon, this greed of land having been, in their opinion, a ' fruitful source of colonial war.' With the Basutos the Orange Free State was perpetually at war.