Chapter 9
We, the undersigned, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, =Martinus Wessel Pretorius=, and =Petrus Jacobus Joubert=, as =representatives delegates= of the =Transvaal Burghers=, _South African Republic_, do hereby agree to all the above conditions, reservations, and limitations, =under which self government has been restored to the inhabitants of the Transvaal Territory, subject to the enzerainty of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successsors, and we agree to accept the Government of the said Territory, with all rights and obligations thereto appertaining, on the 8th day of August 1881,= and we =promise and= undertake that this Convention shall be ratified by a =newly elected= Volksraad of the =Transvaal State= _South African Republic_ within =three= _six_ months from this date.
Signed at =Pretoria,= _London_, this =3rd day of August 1881=
=S.J.P. KRUEGER= =M.W. PRETORIUS= =P.J. JOUBERT=
APPENDIX B. (TRANSLATION).
THE ANNEXATION OF THE DIAMOND FIELDS.
In his speech at the opening of the Cape Parliament on the 18th April, 1872, Sir Henry Barkly said:--
"The Sovereignty of Her Majesty was therefore proclaimed and brought into operation with the _full consent of the diggers_, and the Government has since been carefully and efficiently administered, notwithstanding considerable difficulties."
The _Diamond News_ of the 1st May, 1872, says, in referring to this speech:--
"Of the three short paragraphs which immediately concern us, the first is one of self-congratulation--the diggers and other inhabitants of Griqualand accept the British Government with heartfelt satisfaction. Sir Henry says nothing of the unaccountable and daily increasing dissatisfaction with that Government, and perhaps he knows nothing of it, as it would be an act of suicide for the Commissioners, which they would not be guilty of, to report about the prevailing feelings."
On the 30th May, 1872, the _Diamond Fields_ said:--
"There can be no doubt that the population of the Diamond Fields are strongly opposed to annexation to the Cape Colony.
"If anything like a plebiscite could be taken, the votes against being put under the Cape Government would be in the proportion of nine to one ... even the Free State Government would get two votes to one if the Cape Town Government were the only other candidate."
In December, 1871, scarcely a month after the dispersion of the Free State authorities and the constitution of Sir Henry Barkly's junta, lynch law broke out. Lawlessness and general insecurity prevailed everywhere (see _Diamond News_, 17th January, 20th March, 17th July, 1872).
One reads in the _Diggers' Gazette_ of the 26th April, 1872:--
"No one would wish to ask for a continuation of the existing state of affairs. Only entirely mischievous people could wish for the continuation of such a failure as our Commissioners of British rule have brought about on these Fields. We have formerly expressed ourselves openly about this matter, and our local contemporaries have done the same."
The following remarks were made in the _Diamond News_ of the 16th December, 1871:--
"A description of Du Toit'span by night lately appeared in the _Diamond News_ as it used to be under the admittedly unsatisfactory Free State police, and, by way of contrast, as it now is, after the withdrawal of that police. The comparison is not flattering to the strength of mind or administrative capability of our present rulers, and a comparison of Free State administration with Cape administration would in no way be more favourable to the latter.
"The British Government, so highly prized, which would put everything to rights and would do so much for the diggers, has brought the camps back to their original position of having to protect themselves."
In the _Diamond News_ of the 10th July, 1872 (eight months after the constitution of Sir Henry Barkly's rule), the following criticisms appear:--
"Robberies are becoming so frequent that if we were only to relate the particulars of those that have been brought to our notice we would require more space than our limits will allow. Innumerable petty thefts are passed by without punishment. This is certainly a charming state of affairs! And the question naturally arises--how long will this continue? Thieves, black and white, experienced and dangerous, and yet no night police to stop their illegal actions! Shall we get no night police, or must the scoundrels, who are poisoning our camps continually, enjoy the immunity and freedom which they now appear to have?"
On the 26th July lynch law and revolt broke out afresh in an extensive way at New Rush, the principal diggings. The _Diggers' Gazette_ made the following remarks about this:--
"As long as Judge Lynch remains free to hold his court and to levy his punishments, for so long can the whole framework and machinery of lawful authority just as well cease to exist.
"Authority cannot maintain its claim to be respected as long as persons suffering under the sense of having been injured take the law into their own hands, solely because of the proved incapability of those in authority to protect them where their interests mostly need protection.
"Day after day, and night after night, the one or other part of the camp is entertained by the edifying spectacle of natives being thrashed, tents being burnt, and white people surrounded by ferocious crowds who can scarcely be kept back from carrying out their desire for vengeance by a small truncheon and a thick thong.
"We do not wish to justify this state of affairs, but we cannot shut our eyes to the injustice which almost makes it a necessity. No magistrate, however exceptional, counts against the absence of such laws, discipline, and police as our circumstances demand, and through want of which there is no other prospect than that terrorism which arises out of a blind struggle against anarchy."
The _Diamond News_, in its issue of 20th July, 1872, says:--
"The copious news in our columns, and the reports of meetings, as well as the scenes which take place every night at mass meetings in this time of excitement, uproar and confusion, take up nearly all our principal columns. We heartily wish that the fire may be speedily got under, or else it is very much to be feared that the end will be dreadfully injurious to the safety and welfare of the innocent."
On the 19th July, 1872, a very large meeting of diggers was held at the Market Square, New Rush, when the following resolution, among others, was unanimously passed:--
"As this meeting is of opinion that, with a view to the prevailing disturbances in this camp, the Commissioners ought at once, with the Diggers' Committee, to make such amendments in the existing unsatisfactory state of the law as will as far as possible prevent the thefts of diamonds by native labourers, and their purchase by unprincipled dealers, and will also make such alterations in the law so as to promote the general welfare."
In the Cape Parliament, commencing the 5th June, 1872, Mr. Merriman said:--
"The Fields ... were annexed and a form of government was introduced there which could not be more ludicrous. A sort of irresponsible Commission (the Rovers junta) was established, in which the members could not agree, and were not responsible to anybody; he could imagine nothing more ridiculous or which worked worse. The Orange Free State had given the people a sort of representation, but the first act of our Government was to abolish all the Commissions, and the result was that the people were burdened with an irresponsible body.
"The Orange Free State had appointed a responsible official ... who was efficient ... while we had established a court twenty miles away from the most populated part; whereby grinding expenses had been entailed on those who sought justice, just as if it was the only object of the British Government to pile up heavy law costs."
Mr. Knight said: "One of the chief reasons why he was against Annexation was that nine-tenths of the population on the fields would hold up their hands to get rid of the present Government because they felt that they were far better off before they were annexed."
Mr. Buchanan declared: "He himself, when he visited the Diamond Fields, had wandered from camp to camp, and from the one sorting table to the other, and had talked with the diggers in order to acquaint himself as to their feelings about various matters, and he had obtained the conviction that there was a great deal of feeling against the British Government."
In the subsequent debate in the Cape Parliament Mr. J.H. Brown said, in regard to Mr. Orpen's motion: "That the diggers look with the greatest contempt on the Government which was there now, and that this Government was quite as much hated as it deserved to be."--(_Diggers' Gazette_, 12th July, 1872).
In the _Diamond News_ of the 8th October, 1872, one reads:--
"Newspaper after newspaper comes out, and those who have a claim upon land look eagerly to see 'what is happening about the land?' and all the information the newspaper gives is that David Arnot, Esq., claims half the country, and that Francis Orpen, Esq., the Surveyor, has decided that £30 must be paid before the case of any claimant can be taken into consideration. It is Arnot and Orpen and land; and land and Orpen and Arnot, week after week. They appear to be made one for the other, and for nothing and nobody else.
"Half a newspaper is filled with lists of claims of the said David, and it becomes daily clearer and clearer that the great head chief of Griqualand West cannot be Mr. Waterboer, but must be David Arnot--because all the claims and all the kopjes have been provided for, and all are for Mr. Arnot and nobody else.
"The impression is everywhere that British protection is invoked not for British interests, nor for the interests of Britons working on the fields here, but for the sake of two gentlemen who hold the reins with far more power than ought to be given to anyone who is entrusted with the administration of this country.
"Who has ever heard of a Government which binds itself to give the surveyorship of a new country to one man only? Mr. Francis Orpen is decidedly a first-class man in his profession ... but that does not justify any Government in agreeing that he, and he only, is to keep the survey of this territory entirely in his own hands. Everyone knows what that must lead to."
APPENDIX C.
THE REPLY TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S DISPATCH ON GRIEVANCES.
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PRETORIA.
_26th September_, 1899.
SIR,
The Government of the South African Republic has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a certain dispatch dated 10th May, 1899, addressed to His Excellency the High Commissioner by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in consequence of a petition sent to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. 21,684 signatures appear on this petition, and are said to have been affixed thereto by an equivalent number of British subjects resident at Johannesburg, in this Republic.
This Government notes that Her Majesty's Government have thought fit, on the grounds of the information already in their possession, to make investigation into the subject matter of the aforesaid petition, and, as a result of such investigation, to express to this Government their views on the administration of the internal affairs of this Republic, which said views they have at the same time communicated to the memorialists as an answer to their petition.
This Government may be permitted to point out that the Convention of London of 1884, entered into between this Republic and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, guarantees to the South African Republic full and free internal administration without any interference from anyone whatever. As Lord Derby notifies in his dispatch of the 15th February, 1884:--
"Your Government will be left free to govern the country without interference, and to conduct its diplomatic intercourse, and shape its foreign policy, subject only to the requirements embodied in the fourth article of the new draft--that any treaty with a foreign State shall not have effect without the approval of the Queen."
In his despatch of the 4th February, 1896, the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, states:--
"In the next place, it is necessary that I should state clearly and unequivocally what is the position which Her Majesty's Government claim to hold toward the Government of the South African Republic. Since the Convention of 1884, Her Majesty's Government recognised the South African Republic as a free and independent Government as regards all its internal affairs not touched by the Convention."
In a telegram, also from Mr. Chamberlain, dated 26th March, 1896, the same statement is substantially made, viz.:--"Her Majesty's Government do not claim any rights under the Conventions to prescribe particular internal reforms which should be made in South African Republic."
This Government has always felt it a solemn duty for the Republic to adhere strictly to the Convention of 1884 in its entirety; at the same time, it has been consistent in protesting in the most forcible manner against any interference or intermeddling with the internal affairs of the Republic, and against the discussion or treatment of these affairs with or by any other than the Republic itself, and it can discover no reasons now which would either justify such interference or exempt it from the accusation of being a violation of the Convention of London.
This Government feels convinced that Her Majesty's Government would not favourably entertain a request from British subjects for intervention because the said British subjects are unwilling (as was agreed between this Republic and Her Majesty's Government in the Convention of London) to conform themselves to the laws of the land and to respect the legal institutions and customs of the South African Republic, and because they feel aggrieved that the laws are not altered in accordance with their demands.
The friendly relations so highly prized by this Government which have existed between this Republic and the United Kingdom, the other party to the Convention of London, have always been a safe guarantee to this Government against such a breach of the Convention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and it greatly deplores the fact that Her Majesty's Government has now decided to act in conflict with the Convention of London by busying itself with the imaginary grievances of the Uitlanders, and making representations thereanent to this Government. Against such action this Government feels that it must earnestly and emphatically protest, and the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain could not take it amiss if this Government were to pay no further attention to the charges against its administration contained in the petition, or if they declined to discuss further the views of Her Majesty's Government about these charges.
This Government has, however, on more than one occasion, notified to Her Majesty's Government that it will attach great value to any suggestions which may be tendered in the interests of British subjects, and it will certainly lend a very willing ear to any friendly advice or hints which may be given by Her Majesty's Government as being the representative of a Power which, with this Republic and the Orange Free State, protects and fosters the paramount interests of South Africa.
His Honour the State President was animated by these sentiments when he accepted the courteous invitation of His Honour President Steyn to proceed to Bloemfontein in order to confer with Your Excellency about matters which are an equal source of interest to this Republic and Her Majesty's Government. These friendly sentiments now prompt it to take the liberty of drawing serious attention to the fact that Her Majesty's Government certainly appear to be supplied with insufficient and incorrect data about facts and occurrences from which erroneous ideas and conclusions are drawn, so that, although desirous of avoiding subjects the discussion of which would be contrary to the Convention, this Government nevertheless feels that it ought to convey to Her Majesty's Government the true position of affairs, and that it ought to point out how the latter is misled, the condition of affairs as depicted in the dispatch under reply being in all respects exaggerated, and in many instances entirely untrue.
In the first place, this Government wishes to point out that, so far from the petition which gave rise to the despatch under reply having been signed by 21,684 British subjects, it appears indeed that it was signed by very few people in the South African Republic--leaving aside all mention of British subjects. This has been substantiated in many cases by sworn declarations, many of which were handed to His Excellency the High Commissioner during the Conference at Bloemfontein, and this Government feels that it may flatter itself that the British Government, after having examined these documents, will share with this Government the view that this memorial is in itself a matter of very slight importance, even although it may contain the signatures of a certain number of British subjects who hold the opinion that they are entitled to a change in the form of Government because, in violation of the Convention entered into between this Republic and Her Majesty's Government, they will not conform themselves to the laws of the land, but claim alterations therein at their own caprice.
This Government is all the more convinced that this memorial is of no great moment, and that it certainly does not express the feelings of all the so-called Uitlanders, because another memorial has been received by it from about 23,000 inhabitants of this Republic, nearly all Uitlanders, and amongst whom are several British subjects. The High Commissioner was informed that the signatures to this memorial were obtained in a perfectly _bona fide_ way, and this information was supported by sworn affidavits. The purport of this memorial bore evidence to the fact that the thousands of Uitlanders who signed it were satisfied with the administration and the Government of this Republic, and did not share the views of the memorialists to Her Britannic Majesty in respect of what the latter considered to be legitimate grievances.
This Government may further be permitted to point out that although the Uitlander population may have co-operated in effecting an increase in the revenues of the State, principally, as His Excellency has been informed, in custom dues, prospecting licences, railway receipts, etc., so that the revenue in 1898 amounted to £3,983,360, the fact must not be lost sight of, on the other hand, that gold to the value of _£20,000,000_ was exported from the State during the same year 1898, almost entirely by the Uitlanders.
At the same time, it must not be forgotten that although the, chief item in custom dues is collected on goods which are imported at Johannesburg, yet these goods are not entirely used or consumed by the Uitlanders, for a considerable quantity is sent over the whole Republic by the wholesale merchants to the retail dealers who do business with the burghers in the villages and the country, so that much of what is imported into Johannesburg is destined for consumption by the original burgher of the Republic.
With regard to the contention that the mining industry is more heavily taxed than in any other country, and that the cost of the necessaries of life is higher, this Government desires to remark that this contention is entirely contradicted by facts and statistics. The value of goods imported into the South African Republic during 1898 amounted to £9,996,575, and the custom duties levied thereon to £1,058,224, or 10.6 per cent. Under the Customs Union of the adjacent British Colonies the import duties amounted to 15 per cent, of the value of the goods, a comparison which yields a difference of nearly 50 per cent. in favour of the Republic. When the matter is examined in detail the case is even stronger. In the Colonies certain articles, such as bread stuffs, are subject to a special duty of 2s., say about 30 per cent, of the value, in corn, and 40 per cent. in meal. In this Republic the duty on both the foregoing articles is 7-1/2 per cent.; butter is especially taxed at 3d. per pound, or 30 per cent., under the Customs Union, while in the Republic it is subject only to the 7-1/2 _ad valorem_ duty. Coffee and other necessaries of life, on being compared, would show a similar difference, and this Government therefore trusts that Her Majesty's Government will exonerate it when it points out the incorrectness and unreliability of the information supplied to the Secretary of State, on which he bases his conclusion that the cost of living is unusually high in consequence of the taxation levied by the State; that such is not the case will be at once shown by a comparison with the taxation of the neighbouring Colonies.
The character of the financial administration must have been erroneously represented to Her Majesty's Government if it was simply stated that defalcations to an amount of £18,590 had taken place. It would _ex facie_ appear from such a statement that the above defalcations had taken place during the past year; as a matter of fact, the Inspection Department, which has only recently been called into existence, reported over financial matters covering the years 1884 to 1896.
It is unfair to characterise all deficiencies as defalcations, for from the nature of the case a deficiency does not always constitute a defalcation. The report specified the sub-divisions of monies which had yet to be accounted for. The first item in such deficiencies amounted originally to £12,000, and of this £6,000 was afterwards collected, and the balance was only brought forward; another item of _£10,808 11s._ was brought forward in its entirety, but £3,000 of this was eventually collected and accounted for, while continual efforts were made to secure the balance. Many items not brought forward were collected long before and accounted for, while during the inspection of last year it was found that a sum of £800 yet remained to be paid in out of the deficiencies, which balance has been accounted for.
The contention that advances to officials amounting to _£2,398,506 16s. 8d._ have remained unaccounted for is also absolutely incorrect; and the endeavour to pass this circumstance off as constituting defalcations on the part of officials bears ample witness to the strong desire to mislead which has actuated the informants of Her Majesty's Government.
Any person who is even superficially acquainted with financial administration will readily admit that this is due to a system of accounting which was followed until recently by Her Majesty's Government, and which obtains in some British Colonies, in Natal, for instance, at the present moment.
This system may deserve condemnation; it does not, however, necessarily follow that because the advances may not be speedily accounted for they have been embezzled, and it does not appear either from the report of the Inspector of Offices, or from the debates of the Volksraad, that such accusations were made. But in addition to this a sum of at least £1,968,306 is included in the aforesaid total of £2,398,506 16s. 8d. (but which is not comprised in the customary advances), such as Orphan Chamber £80,000, Indigent Burghers £150,000, Postal Orders £60,000, various loans to School Committees, Sanitary Boards, and for Waterworks, Hospitals, Committees, monies placed at interest in Europe, provisional loans to Railway Companies, purchases of food stuffs and mules in time of famine, and many others.