§ EARL CADOGANsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies of which he had given him private Notice, as to a reference made in 'The Times of that morning concerning the negotiations that had been carried on lately between Her Majesty's Government and the leaders of the Boers. The Times said—
The facts of the case we believe to he as follows:—Through President Brand, of the Orange Free State, the Provisional Government of the Boers made overtures to Sir George Colley. These were somewhat ambiguous in their language, but seemingly to the effect that the British troops should evacuate the Transvaal, and that commissioners should be appointed to settle its future relations with us. To this Sir George Colley has replied, under instructions from home, that if the garrisons in the Transvaal are left unmolested and allowed freely to obtain supplies, and if hostile operations against us are at once suspended by the Boers, we will agree to appoint commissioners. The result, if any, of this communication we have yet to learn. To Sir George Colley's message no final answer has been received.Last Tuesday he (Earl Cadogan) put a Question to Her Majesty's Government as to the position of affairs at the beginning of last week, and was informed that overtures for peace were carried on through the intervention of President Brand which met with the support of the people of this country up to the 28th January, when the disaster took place at Laing's Neck which had not yet been retrieved. He wished to know whether the article he had quoted was correct, and whether negotiations were still going on?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy answer to my noble Friend is that Her Majesty's Government have taken such steps as seemed to them best calculated 1346 to promote a satisfactory settlement and to spare the effusion of blood consistently with the honour of the British Crown; but it would not be for the public advantage to enter at the present moment upon details. I may, however, add that a communication from the Boers has been received through President Brand.
§ LORD BRABOURNE,in rising to call the attention of the Government to a proclamation recently published by the Dutch Triumvirate in the Transvaal, purporting to give an historical retrospect of events connected with the annexation of the Transvaal and previous thereto, and justifying the rising of the Boers against Her Majesty's authority, said, he should not venture to bring the subject of the Transvaal before their Lordships unless he had a special reason and a definite object. That reason and object he would endeavour to set forth with precision and brevity, and he humbly asked their Lordships' indulgence while he performed the task. Ever since the first news of a rising in the Transvaal reached this country, all Englishmen worthy of the name had been agreed upon one point—namely, that before any possible change in our future policy in those regions could be even thought of, Her Majesty's authority must be completely vindicated and re-established; and if he thought for one moment that such a result could be at all retarded or in the smallest degree prejudiced by a debate in their Lordships' House, certainly he would not have opened his mouth on the subject. That, however, was not the case; and if there was any danger to be apprehended he thought it was of a different kind. From the first moment of the present rising there had been a Party in this country who had earnestly and vehemently contended that, whatever might be the necessity of vindicating Her Majesty's authority at the moment, yet the Boers were to be regarded as having a great excuse for their action; that their country was wrongfully annexed three years ago; and that upon the first possible opportunity we ought to restore to those men the independence of which they had been unjustly deprived. Even upon that very evening a meeting was about to be held in favour of "the independence" of the Boers; and only on Saturday he had seen the report of an address for the 1347 same object presented to the Prime Minister, and purporting to come from 600 representative working men. Those who took that view, in public speeches and in the Press, were chiefly, if not exclusively, friends and supporters of Her Majesty's Government. There was much that was plausible in their arguments, and those arguments bad received additional weight from sympathetic expressions of opinion which had lately reached us from Holland and Germany. The danger which he apprehended was this— that unless the opposite side of the question was put fully and fairly before Parliament and the country, Her Majesty's Ministers might be led to believe that there was a consensus, or, at all events, a preponderance of public opinion in favour of abandoning the Transvaal to the Boers; and so, if that rising should suddenly collapse, they might find one morning that Government had come to a resolution in favour of abandonment which it might be difficult to alter. Therefore he was most anxious that the case on both sides should be before the public; and it was with this intention, and not with either the desire or expectation of drawing from Her Majesty's Ministers a premature declaration of policy, that he ventured to address their Lordships. It was an invidious thing for an Englishman to argue, or to appear to argue, against the freedom and independence of another people. We were ourselves a free people; we enjoyed, indeed, all the advantages of Republican freedom without the disadvantages which accompanied that form of government; and when appeals were made to us in the name of freedom, and we were told by a great statesman, in eloquent language, that we, "the free subjects of a Monarchy, had coerced the free subjects of a Republic," a sentiment of shame arose within us, our feelings of generosity were at once touched, and our natural inclination was to retrace any steps which had led us into so false a position. But the counter case which he had to present to their Lordships was not one which had to be supported by rhetorical alliterations or appeals to sentiment. It was a case founded upon hard, dry facts, upon official documents and historical data; and upon such he asked their Lordships and the country to give a calm and impartial verdict. Let it be understood that he spoke with 1348 no bias against those whom they called the Dutch Boers. Many of those men were really descended from the old French Huguenots, with whom he (Lord Brabourne) claimed no distant affinity, and he was very ready to recognize all that was good in their character. They were a people of sturdy independence, of indomitable energy and perseverance, of much endurance, and of great courage; and he earnestly wished that, instead of being arrayed against Englishmen, as a portion of them were at present, they could be associated with us, hand-in-hand and side-by-side, working out for South Africa a future of prosperity and content. But be held in his hand the recent Proclamations of the Dutch Triumvirate, which declared their own conception of their present position; and although to persons of imaginative minds, and to those who were not accustomed to carefully collect facts and to weigh evidence, the document was not without its attractions, he felt bound to protest in the name of truth and of justice against much that was inconsistent both with one and the other. Let him epitomize that document in a few words. The Boers said that the Convention of 1852 gave them their independence; they said further—
Never has any provision of this Convention been violated, whereby even the pretence of right has been given to England to withdraw from its obligations; "that" the most amicable relations have since that time existed between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic; "and that" Sir Theophilus Shepstone abused a special power granted to him under entirely different circumstances,when he proclaimed British sovereignty over the Transvaal. Now, if they accepted these statements, and if they were to believe one-half of what had been said and written by those who sympathized with the Boers in this country, they must conclude that Great Britain had from first to last been guilty of a cruel and inexcusable persecution of these people; that she had pitilessly followed them in order to inflict her yoke upon them; that no sooner had she made a Treaty with them than she began to violate its provisions; that she had made false accusations against them as regards slavery; had stirred up the Native Tribes to attack them, and had concluded a long course of flagrant injustice by arbitrarily annexing their country without the slightest justification. To these conclusions he respect- 1349 fully demurred, and submitted that the true reading of history was entirely different. There could be no doubt whatever that the reason of the Boers "trekking" from the Cape in 1835 was the abolition of slavery in British Colonies. It had been often denied; but the facts went far to prove it. At the time of that measure there were more than 35,000 slaves in Cape Colony, valued at £1,200,000. The emancipation was effected without due care that the compensation reached the hands of those who lost their property; and the Boers quitted the English Colony partly, no doubt, because of their love of independence, still more, no doubt, because they disliked the taxation borne by British Colonists, but mainly because they honestly considered that they had been badly treated by having their slaves taken away from them, and because they wished to maintain that institution of slavery, which they believed to be one of Divine origin, and to be the proper relation between the White man and the Black. It was unnecessary to weary their Lordships with a recital of the events which occurred between 1835 and 1852. According to the Boers, the iron hand of England followed them everywhere, they wandered about in the wilderness and found no city to dwell in, until the Convention of 1852 gave them their independence. It was an interesting history; but the question as to the right of Great Britain to claim, as she did, that the allegiance of those who had once been her subjects was inalienable was one which, although it admitted of argument, need not be argued to-day, since it was incontestable that she waived her claim to that allegiance in the provisions of that Sand River Convention of 1852 which had become so famous. That which he desired to maintain to-day was, first, that the Boers themselves, by flagrant and frequent violations of the Sand River Convention, had entirely discharged England from her obligations; and, secondly, that the Transvaal was in such a state in 1877, owing to the misgovernment of the Boers, or rather their failure to govern at all, that nothing but British intervention and the proclamation of British sovereignty saved it from becoming, in all probability, the theatre of terrible and bloody warfare. Much controversy had arisen on the question whether the Boers 1350 had been guilty of slavery or not. That accusation had been strenuously denied by the Boers. But he ventured to put this point to their' Lordships—If the Boers were free from any taint or suspicion of slavery, how were they to account for that 4th provision of the Convention which ran thus?—It is agreed that no slavery is or shall be permitted or practised in the country to the north of the Vaal by the emigrant farmers.That provision could only be explained in one way—namely, that the British Government was well aware of the practice and propensity of the Boers; that they knew the dangers which would certainly spring therefrom; and, therefore, only permitted their independence upon the condition that these practices should be abandoned. As to the manner in which they had kept this provision, and as to the slavery practised by them, he should be obliged to weary their Lordships by reading several extracts from the Blue Books presented to Parliament during the last few years, for the charge was strenuously denied, and it was most necessary to sift and consider the evidence. And, first, let him cite the evidence of Dr. Livingstone. Dr. Livingstone wrote to Sir John Pakington in December, 1852, concerning a tribe on the Limpopo River, among whom he had successfully laboured for eight years. He said—No portion of the country belonged to the Boers, but they made frequent attempts to induce the Chief Sechele to prevent the English from passing him in their way north, and because he refused to comply with this policy a commando was sent against him by Mr. Preforms, which on the 30th of September last attacked and destroyed his town, killed 60 of his people, and carried off upwards of 200 women and children. Of these many of the former will escape; but the latter are reduced to hopeless slavery. They are sold and bought as slaves, and I have myself seen and conversed with such, taken from other tribes, and living as slaves in the houses of the Boers. One of Sechele's children is among the number captured; and the Boer who owns him can, if necessary, be pointed out.Now, the answers which were made to such accusations as this were curious enough. A gentleman, who was not unfavourably disposed towards the Boers, had only yesterday remarked to him (Lord Brabourue)—"They say that Dr. Livingstone was against them, because they sacked and burned his house." But what answer was it to the charge 1351 of slavery to admit that they had destroyed the house of an innocent man in a country where they had no right to be? In admitting" that they had made a lawless raid they went half way to prove the whole charge. But he would not bring forward other Missionary evidence, further than to remark that there was a little book published by Tweedie in the Strand in 1871, containing three letters from Mr. Chesson, Secretary to the Aborigines Protection Society, to Mr. P. N. Fowler, then Member for Falmouth, and now for London. These letters contained much evidence from Missionaries, including the statements made to them by various Native women, narrating how their male relatives had been killed by the Boers, and themselves and their children carried off, and how they had been bought and sold as slaves, all proving the truth of the charge which was advanced. He would now take another class of evidence, and would quote from the Blue Book the report of the Special Correspondent of The Cape Argus, an independent paper, which said—The whole world may know it, for it is true, and investigation will only bring out the horrible details, that through the whole course of this Republic's existence it has acted in contravention of the Sand River Treaty, and slavery has occurred, not only here and there in isolated cases, but as an unbroken practice has been one of the peculiar institutions of the country, mixed up with all its social and political life. It has been at the root of most of its wars; it has been carried on regularly even in the times of peace.Again, in 1868, the Duke of Buckingham, writing to Mr. Pretorius, warned him that—If the Boers continued to violate the Anti-Slavery Article Great Britain would hold herself discharged from her obligations under the Convention.In 1875 Mr. Southey, Lieutenant Governor, writing from Kimberley, said that certain laws just passed by the RepublicEstablish practically a state of quasi-slavery in direct conflict with the stipulation of the Convention of 1852.Writing in November, 1876, the Acting Secretary for Native Affairs in Natal said—Since the demonstration made by the forces of Secocoeni against Steelport Fort a party of Boers thought it necessary to attack a kraal of friendly Kaffirs by night, succeeding in shooting four men and capturing six women and 22 chil- 1352 dren. The women have been given to Kaffirs at Kruger's Post, and the children distributed among the Boers to serve an apprenticeship, otherwise slavery.Then take the numerous complaints of Native Chiefs, which were scattered all through the Blue Books. He (Lord Brabourne) would only quote one. Khame, a Native Chief, thus wrote to Sir Henry Barkly in December, 1876—I write to you, Sir Henry, in order that your Queen may preserve for me my country, it being in her hands. The Boers are coming into it, and I do not like them: their actions are bad among us Black people. We are like money. They sell us and our children. I ask Her Majesty to pity me, and to hear that which I write quickly.He had yet more weighty evidence— namely, these solemn Resolutions of the Legislature of Natal passed on the 10th of August, 1868, their object at the time being to protest against the continuance of the Office of Lord High Commissioner, as that functionary had not sufficient control to put down the practices in the Transvaal which were so dangerous to their neighbours. This is what they said—That ever since the annexation of the Orange River Sovereignty (since abandoned) in 1848, the emigrant farmers who settled over the Vaal River and formed a Government of their own, under the style of the South African Republic, have carried on a system of slavery under the guise of child-apprenticeship—such children being the result of raids carried on against Native Tribes, whose men are slaughtered, but whose children and property are seized, the one being enslaved and sold as 'apprentices,' the other being appropriated.Then, after quoting what they term "clear and positive evidence" of special cases, given by trustworthy witnesses, they went on to say—That the existence of this system of slavery, attended as it is by indescribable atrocities and evils, is a notorious fact to all persons acquainted with the Transvaal Republic; that these so-called 'destitute children' are bought and sold under the denomination of 'black ivory;' that these evils were fully admitted by persons officially cognizant of them at a public meeting held in Potchefstroom in April, 1868; and that the whole subject has been brought fully under the notice of the High Commissioner.Then, after quoting the reply of the High Commissioner, in which he said that—It would be beyond the power of the Transvaal Republic, admitting it to have the inclination, to put down a trade which the Boers must find to be very tempting and profitable,1353 the Legislative Assembly go on to say that this trade isA direct breach of the Treaty entered into with Her Majesty's Commissioners, is an outrage on humanity and civilization, and is an aggravation of the traffic which Her Majesty's Government has so long sought to suppress upon the East Coast.The extracts which he (Lord Braboume) had read were not one-twentieth part of those which could have been taken from the Blue Books in support of his case. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that the case with regard to the charge of slavery against the Transvaal Boers stood thus—that they, being interested parties, most strenuously denied it. They had denied it over and over again; but they had never disproved the facts brought against them. But, if their Lordships believed the disavowal of the Boers, they must disbelieve the Missionaries, the independent Press of South Africa, and a number of officials in the Colonies writing homo despatches which they knew might be and would be scrutinized by the public eye. They must, also, disbelieve all the complaints of the Native Tribes, the solemn Resolutions of the Legislature of one of their Colonies, the opinion of a Colonial Minister, and that of an Under Secretary of the Colonies, speaking with full official information upon the subject. And not only must they disbelieve these, but they must be prepared to believe that the whole of these parties were for 25 years in a conspiracy to slander the Boers without any conceivable motive or reason why they should have formed such a conspiracy. The supposition was so monstrous that he had no doubt their Lordships would come to the conclusion that he had, after a careful examination of the Blue Books, shown that the charge of slavery was clearly proved against the Transvaal Boers. But it was not only by the practice of slavery that the Transvaal Boers virtually broke again and again the Convention of 1852. He heard people constantly talking about the Transvaal Government and the Transvaal country as if, in 1852, there had been recognized by Great Britain a regular Government with a defined country. This was, no doubt, the case with the Orange River Territory, which was abandoned in 1854. Let him (Lord Brabourne) here remark that he had always been of opinion that 1354 the abandonment of the Orange River Territory was one of the greatest mistakes ever committed by a British Government. But, having said this, let him also say that the Orange Free State—in which the White population was in a majority—had shown such a capacity for self-government, and had done so well, especially under its present excellent President, Mr. Brand, that so long as it showed itself able to maintain its neutral and independent position, not only would no Englishman grudge it its independence, but all would rejoice at its prosperity and progress. But the words of the Convention of the Orange Free State gave independence to "the country and its inhabitants." But in the case of the Transvaal, all that was done was to permit the Boers to govern themselves by their own laws, and, said the first Article, "it being understood that this system of non-interference is binding upon both parties." Now, what did the "system of non-interference" mean, read with the former part of the clause, which provided that "no encroachment should be made on the territory north of the Vaal" by the British Government? It could not have been expected that the emigrant farmers were likely to interfere with our Colonies by attacking them; but, reading between the lines of the Treaty, it was clearly meant that they should not follow a policy towards any of their neighbours which would interfere with the tranquillity of our Colonies. Well, at that time the Boers were divided into three separate bodies; they were at variance among themselves; and it was not until 1858 that any united government was attempted. The annexation took place early in 1877, so that this Republic, the attachment of its citizens to which was so much vaunted, actually had not endured 19 years, and its country consisted to a very large extent of other people's country, which it had taken from them. He did not wish to weary their Lordships with extracts from Blue Books; but he said that, without doubt, it was a practical violation of the Convention of 1852 when the Transvaal Republic so acted towards the Native Tribes on every side that complaints came continually to the British authorities, and that Great Britain was actually driven, over and over again, to protest against their conduct. He wanted 1355 their Lordships to consider for a moment whether or not the Boers could be fairly said to have observed the conditions of that Treaty. The whole Blue Book teemed with evidence against them as to their proceedings against the Native Tribes. At page 41 (Papers presented April, 1377), Lopopnula, Chief of the Amantebele, complained that the Boers were settling in his country against his will; at page 47, the men of the Lesuto "are in difficulty with the Boers;" at page 65, Montsioa, Chief of the Baralongs, complained that the Boers are "trying to set aside Mr. Keate's award," Mr. Keate having in 1870 been chosen by both parties to settle the boundary, which he had done not altogether to the Boers' satisfaction. There were many other instances; but perhaps the two worst were those of the Amaswazi and Secocoeni's. The first was brought to light in a curious way. Umbandeni, King of the Amaswazi, wrote to thank the Natal Government for having sent a Commando, under M. Rudolph, to repel a Zulu attack; but added, that he did not know why he had been asked to sign a renewal of his Treaty with Natal, as his friendship with Natal wanted no renewal. The Natal Government replied that they had sent no Commando —M. Rudolph had for four years ceased to be an officer of theirs, and had been employed by the Transvaal Government. This had not been disclosed to Umbandeni, and then it turned out that what they had got him to sign as a renewal of the Natal Treaty was a cession of his country to the Boers, which he had never intended, and which, of course, greatly irritated him. In Secocoeni's ease, the Boers claimed to have purchased his country from his father, Sequate, in 1846, who had then ceased to be an owner of land. But it was shown that they had made a Treaty with him 11 years afterwards, which they would hardly have done if this had been his position, and their own maps showed his territory to have been outside their boundary in 1868. Thereupon the President of the Republic disavowed the maps, although it was proved that they had been made by two gentlemen, one of whom was Postmaster General of the Transvaal Republic at the time; they had been made from their own Surveyor General's surveys, and the two gentlemen who had made them had received for 1356 their trouble a grant of land from the Volksraad! These kind of things had been constantly going on when, at the close of 1876, Lord Carnarvon ordered an inquiry into the state of the Transvaal and the charges against the Boers. It was beyond dispute that a very bitter feeling had arisen on the subject at that time, and the evidence of anarchy, confusion, and danger was overwhelming. In September 1876, Mr. Osborn, resident magistrate at Newcastle, wrote—This encroaching policy of the Transvaal Boers is fraught with danger to the peace of the whole of South Africa. The Natives, being constantly deprived of their territories, will, sooner or later, be induced to make common cause against the White man to save themselves from extermination for want of land.Sir Henry Barkly had previously maintained that it would be better to leave the Transvaal affairs alone; but he had altered his opinion in July, and, on the 30th of October, he wrote to say that the then state of affairs in the Transvaal bordered upon anarchy, and that it was incumbent on the British Government to interfere, since—Although in other parts of the Republic lawlessness and inhumanity were less rampantly exhibited, the machinery of Administration is everywhere all but paralyzed, and the Republic seems about to fall to pieces through its own weakness.But he (Lord Brabourne) would call into the witness-box a witness who could not be suspected of hostility towards the Boer Republic. This was no less a personage than the President of the Republic himself, a few passages of whose speeches to the Volksraad in March, 1877, he (Lord Brabourne) would venture to quote. Speaking against Confederation, he pointed out the condition of the country as follows:—Anarchy is a worse oppression than any foreign Power can be thought, and cannot be borne long by any nation. I toll you openly, matters are as bad as they can be; they cannot be worse. The people were as good as any other people; but they were completely demoralized— they had lost faith in God, reliance upon themselves, and trust in each other. They shamed by their conduct the very ideas which are the pride and glory of Republics. He could tell the Raad that within the last few years the Cape had been more of a Republic than the Transvaal. The Republic was the obstruction to their real independence. If the citizens of England had behaved towards the Crown as the burghers of this State had behaved to their Governments, England would never have stood so long as she had.1357 And with regard to England, the President said—It is asked, what have they to do with our position? I tell you, as much as we have to do with that of our Kaffir neighbours. As little as we can allow barbarities among the Kaffirs on our borders, so little can they allow that in a State on their borders anarchy and rebellion should exist.This was pretty good evidence as to the condition of the Transvaal, and as to its financial position he (Lord Brabourne) need only quote a Report of the Volksraad itself (Blue Book, c. 1776, page 108), which ran thus—The Volksraad resolves, that whereas it appears from the Report of the Financial Commission that the taxes have not for the greater part been paid, and it has thus become impossible, under such circumstances, for the Government to carry on the administration and control of the country," &c, &c.This was the state in which Sir Theophilus Shepstone found the Transvaal; and he had, moreover, to consider the state of the Native Tribes. The Boors now said that although Secocoeni had gained some successes, they had concluded a satisfactory peace with him before the annexation. This, however, did not appear to have been really the case, for although the Chief had consented to pay over 2,000 head of cattle, and not cross a certain boundary, he complained that he had been deceived and made to sign other conditions to which he had not agreed. He repudiated the Treaty, and, as subsequent events proved, having learned from the last fights to disbelieve in the superior prowess of the White man, was quite prepared to begin the conflict again. Moreover, Sir Theophilus Shepstone had the best reasons for believing that the Zulus, who hated the Dutch, and had long been restrained only by the influence of the Natal Government from attacking them, could not much longer be held back from doing so, which would, undoubtedly, have been the commencement of a fearful struggle. Now, he (Lord Brabourne) had heard with very great regret many disparaging remarks made about Sir Theophilus Shepstone; for there appeared to be some people in this country who never were so happy as when they were finding fault with what their country had done, and with the conduct of those officials who represented her, often under very trying circumstances, when they re- 1358 quired, and had a right to expect, the support and sympathy of their countrymen at homo. It had been charged against Sir Theophilus Shepstone that he had been actuated by the lust of ambition, and by the desire to extend the territories of this Empire; that he had behaved very badly, and that he had got us into all these difficulties. He did not mean to say that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been perfectly correct in everything that he had done since he had arrived in the Transvaal; but perhaps there were few of their Lordships who could look back upon, every action of their lives without feeling that they might have acted, in some respects, differently if they could have judged of such transaction by the light which had been thrown upon it by subsequent events. Her Gracious Majesty's Warrant to Sir Theophilus Shepstone ran as follows:—Whereas grievous disturbances have broken out in the territories adjacent to our Colonies in South Africa, with war between the White inhabitants and the Native races, to the great peril of the peace and safety of our said Colonics.It was said that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had exceeded his instructions. What he maintained, however, was that the conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been actuated by the highest and best possible motives, and that the mainspring of his action was not the desire to extend the territories of Great Britain beyond due limits, but to prevent a terrible war which he believed to be imminent. Who was Sir Theophilus Shepstone? Why, he was a most eminent public servant, who had hold a great number of public appointments with credit to himself, and whose services in South Africa had been of the greatest advantage to his country; he was a man who, more than any other European, was acquainted with the wants and feelings of the Black races — by some of whom he was called their "Father," as a token of their confidence and respect; and he knew that the irritation on the part of the Natives against the Dutch was so great that it would be impossible for the Government of Natal much longer to prevent a war breaking out. Were he (Lord Brabourne) so disposed, he might quote from the Blue Books many instances of cruelty towards the Natives which were alleged, ap- 1359 parently upon good evidence, against the Boers; but lie purposely forebore to do so, because he thought his case was strong enough without it, and he did not wish to excite horror or to create unnecessary irritation, hoping, as he did, that these people might soon settle down peacefully, and that, under British sovereignty, such things would never again be heard of. These, however, contributed to the irritation of the Native mind, and led to the state of things which justified British interference. Now, in the autumn of 1879 there was carried on what was popularly known as the Mid Lothian Campaign, in the course of which several eloquent speeches were made by the present Prime Minister, in one of which he deprecated any annexation of territories which added to our already extended Empire a territory which yielded us neither men nor money, whilst it increased our burdens and responsibilities. But the truth of such a proposition appeared so indisputable that he (Lord Brabourne) could not but think that the Prime Minister and those who thought with him should have given the late Government credit for some other motive for adopting the course they had done than the mere desire of adding additional territory to our Empire. There were several kinds of annexations. If a strong nation seized upon the territory of a weaker neighbour for the mere purpose of self-aggrandizement, there was no excuse for such conduct. If, after a contest between two great Powers, one annexed certain provinces of the other, the most that could be said was that, in all probability, the annexing Power was sowing the seeds of future warfare. Then it might happen that a weak State, conscious of its own feebleness, sought, voluntarily, to be incorporated with a stronger neighbour, to which no one could object. And, again, there might be a case in which the inherent weakness of a State and its internal anarchy made it such a danger to all its neighbours that its incorporation with another Power was desirable and necessary for the general security. This was emphatically the case with the Transvaal Republic; and, in his opinion, both Sir Theophilus Shepstone and Lord Carnarvon, in advocating the annexation of the Transvaal, had been actuated solely by the honest belief that it was necessary for 1360 the safety of our South African Colonies that such a step should be taken. It was not his business to defend Lord Carnarvon, who was perfectly able to defend himself, and who had plenty of friends to take his part; nevertheless, he felt bound to express his real opinion on this question. It had been said, and he was sorry to have heard the observation made, that those who sat on the Liberal Benches had only given a sort of half-consent to the annexation of the Transvaal, and that they were, therefore, now at liberty to protest against it. It was only right and just that he should say what was the real position of affairs. In 1877 there were only two Gentlemen upon the Front Opposition Bench in the House of Commons who had, in recent years, represented the Colonial Department under a Liberal Government—Mr. W. E. Forster and himself. He (Lord Brabourne) was not so presumptuous as to suppose that anything which he said or thought could have much influence with their Lordships; but he had never allowed, and would never allow, these great questions to be viewed by himself through the narrow vision of Party considerations, and he had most carefully studied the whole question. He came to the conclusion that the course proposed by Lord Carnarvon was the only one worthy of a British Minister to pursue, and that, had he been in the position of that noble Lord, or even had he occupied the post of Under Secretary to the present Minister of the Colonies, a similar line of conduct would certainly have been adopted. Therefore, he had no alternative but to give a loyal support to Lord Carnarvon's policy. And he felt bound to say more than this, that both before and after he (Lord Brabourne) spoke strongly in this sense on August 7, 1877, he bad been in communication with his noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley, and had never the slightest reason to believe, down to the present moment, that there was any difference between them upon the subject. But what said Mr. W. E. Forster during the same Session?He believed the annexation to have been an absolute necessity. He was convinced that if the annexation had not been effected there would have been utter anarchy in an enormous district; and that until it was made there was the greatest possible danger of a most bloody and destructive war. The White population of 1361 the Transvaal were bringing on a most dangerous war, in which, in all probability, they would have been defeated and very nearly destroyed. Some might say that they ought to have been left to take the consequences. Practically, however, this country would not have suffered that result. It would have felt bound to come forward in their defence. For his part, he believed there had never been a more decided attempt to use words in order to hide facts, or rather to pervert facts, than that which had resulted in the protest framed in Holland against the annexation of the Transvaal."— [3 Mansard, ccxxxv. 1758–9.]Several other speeches were delivered; but no Liberal Member opposed the measure except Mr. Courtney, save one or two of the Irish Home Rule Party, who, with an admirable consistency, being themselves always clamouring for freedom, supported those against whom one of the chief charges was their predilection for slavery, and making it their own chief complaint that the land of their country had been stolen from her people, stood up for those who had certainly been the greatest land robbers of modern times. But one speech was made by a Gentleman whom no one would think likely to coerce independence or restrain freedom. Mr. Joseph Cowen, Member for Newcastle, made an eloquent speech in favour of that which he said was not annexation but incorporation. He said that—The Government of the Transvaal Was in a hopeless state of insolvency. There was civil discord within its boundaries, and war, that threatened to be a war of extermination, without. The administration was not only in a state of confusion, but chaos. Though the name of a Republic had an attraction and a striking fascination for his mind, a Republic respected the rights of all. The Republicanism of the Transvaal was nominal—its despotism was real, and its despots were a multitude. What they wanted was not freedom from British control; but they desired to exercise 'the right divine of governing wrong;'and he said that—Their feebleness endangered the position of the Cape Colonies and the safety of our fellow-citizens in that part of the world.The speeches to which he had referred having been delivered, and the question having cropped up several times during the Session of 1877, without any Liberal statesman of position or eminence having said a word against the measure proposed, he must contend that their Lordships and the country had a right to consider that both political Parties in the State had indorsed the policy of the 1362 annexation of the Transvaal. As to the actual facts of the annexation, considering that Sir Theophilus Shepstone had only 25 policemen and 12 gentlemen with him, he could not suppose that it would have been allowed to take place if there had been any real feeling of opposition among the people immediately affected by it; and he questioned whether, if certain events had not occurred, the President's protest would not have ended that opposition. The protest, in fact, was quietly read in the market place. It was rather the act of one who, "vowing he would ne'er consent, consented," and was only a wrapping of the drapery around himself that he might fall with becoming dignity. It must not be forgotten that a large number of signatures were appended to addresses in favour of annexation to British rule; but now they were told either that Sir Theophilus Shepstone manufactured the addresses and signatures, or else that he had been deceived by signatures that were not authentic, and did not represent the feelings of any considerable number of persons in the Transvaal. This was, of course, a possible solution of the question; but there was also this other one—that when civil war, anarchy, bankruptcy, and a struggle with the Native Tribes seemed to stare them in the face, a very large number of people in the Transvaal desired annexation; but when those dangers had passed away their feelings underwent a great change, and especially when they found that under British rule they would have to pay taxes just as the other Colonists had to do. And, moreover, with regard to the willingness of the Boers to submit, it ought not to be forgotten that Lord Carnarvon, having had an interview with the Boer delegates, Dr. Jorissen and Mr. Paul Kruger, the latter being actually one of the Dutch Triumvirate who had issued this Proclamation, thus wrote in November, 1877 (c. 1961, p. 147)—They were fully alive to the fact that considerations of policy rendered it impossible for my decision to be other than irrevocable. They further assured me of their determination to use their best endeavours to induce their fellow-countrymen to accept cheerfully the present state of things, and of their desire, should they be permitted to do so, to serve Her Majesty faithfully in any capacity for which they might be judged eligible!He (Lord Brabourne) greatly feared that some mischief had been caused to this 1363 question by public utterances in this country, and by the imperfect knowledge of the English language possessed by the Dutch Boers, which did not enable them to follow the different meanings in which the word "repudiate" might be employed. The annexation of the Transvaal having been publicly "repudiated" before the General Election, it was certain that the Boers felt disappointment when a change of Government was not followed by a reversal, by Her Majesty's present Advisers, of the policy of their Predecessors in this respect. There were two distinct and different ways in which the history of recent Transvaal events might be recorded. The Boer historian would relate how, when the Republic was in temporary difficulties, she was annexed by Great Britain, in spite of the protest of her Government. He would go on to say that for three weary years the citizens of the Republic appealed in vain to the justice of the British people, and that it was not until every other means had been exhausted that they resolved to enter upon a struggle—the noblest which could engage the energies of man—a struggle for freedom. The same history would be written by another, and he thought a more truthful, pen. It might be told that at a time when, by the confession of her own Chief, the Republic, through its own inherent weakness and the bad conduct of its own people, was at its last gasp, and when what remained to it of existence was threatened on every side by savage foes, then the intervention of Great Britain occurred; and that intervention alone saved the inhabitants of the Transvaal from a terrible war of races—a war which must have been carried on with frightful slaughter on both sides, and would, not improbably, have resulted in the annihilation of the White Settlers beyond the Vaal. And the historian might thus continue—that after they bad been saved by British interposition, the Transvaal Boers first of all stood sullenly by and refused to aid the British in that Zulu War which entirely originated in the previous policy of their own Republic towards the Natives, and that then, when the danger was over, when British troops had overcome and captured the Chief Secocoeni, when British blood had been poured out like water, and British treasure had been lavished in order to break down the 1364 power of the Zulus and to depose their great King Cetewayo—then, when the country was tranquillized, and there seemed nothing to fear from the Natives, those men turned upon their benefactors, ambushed and shot down the soldiers of the nation which had saved them from destruction, and in the sacred names of independence and patriotism invoked the public opinion of Europe in approval of an act of ingratitude so flagrant as scarcely to find a parallel in the history of the world. And be (Lord Brabourne) grieved to say that by the same historian another chapter might be added— namely, to tell that at the very moment when British soldiers were being thus slain, there were found men in England to justify the slayers— to go out upon the platform and in the Press, to traduce the policy of their own country, and to condemn her servants, and in their enthusiasm for the patriotism of the Boers, forgetting that their own country might claim something of the same kind from themselves, to approve and support a cause which could only be justified upon the assumption that England had committed a flagrant and atrocious crime! More un-English, more unpatriotic conduct than that of these men he could not conceive, acting, as they did, at a moment of difficulty and danger, and apparently desiring the success of those who were in arms against their country. He begged pardon if he spoke too warmly; but he felt deeply on the subject. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office might ask what he recommended. He was not so presumptuous as to offer advice to his noble Friend; and if solutions of the difficulty had occurred to him, he knew well enough that to mention such solutions would not increase the probability of their adoption. But this he would venture to say—premising always that before terms were offered resistance to Her Majesty's authority must be overcome and at an end—be would give to the Transvaal Boers, as soon as it could be rightly done, the freest institutions, the most ample powers of self-government that were compatible with the due administration of a regular Executive, and with a restraint which experience had proved necessary upon their dealings with Native Tribes. This country must be guarded alike against unjust seizure of Native lands, and the continuance of 1365 that slavery which was repugnant to humanity. It might be true that no British interests were to be directly served by our retention of the Transvaal; but he ventured to think that there might be something higher even than British interests. He would venture to quote (and it should be the last quotation with which he would trouble their Lordships) the words of a British Minister who well appreciated and understood the principles upon which the real greatness of England was founded. Lord John Russell, writing to Sir George Grey upon the question of retaining British Kaffraria, on June 3, 1855, used these words—Let me, in the first place, declare explicitly that it is for no object of dominion or extension of territory that Great Britain wishes to maintain possession of Kaffraria. So far as the interests of this Empire are concerned, British Kaffraria might he abandoned and the eastern districts of the Cape Colony left unprotected, without injury to the power of the United Kingdom, and with a considerable saving to its finances. But such considerations have not been allowed to prevail. The performance of an honourable duty to British Colonists, the maintenance of a position acquired at a great cost both of men and money, and, lastly, views of comprehensive and vigilant humanity induced Her Majesty's Government to take a very different course.It was idle to talk about getting rid of our responsibilities; and he did not hesitate to say that, in his view, a Minister who would sit down and shiver under his responsibilities was unfit to be a British Minister. At this moment we were responsible to the British residents in the Transvaal, to whom we had practically promised protection; we were responsible to the Native Tribes, to stand between them and the oppression to which they had so long been subjected without our interference; we were responsible to the Boers themselves, for they could not be prosperous unless we preserved order in their country; we were responsible to the White inhabitants of South Africa, that the Transvaal should no longer be a standing menace to their security; above all, we were responsible to the British people, whose blood had been shed and their money spent in a manner which would, indeed, afford a melancholy retrospect if the only result which we had achieved should be the re-establishment of a Republic which had abused its power in almost every respect. He sincerely trusted that his 1366 noble Friend, whom he knew had the welfare of South Africa at heart, and whose counsel he hoped would be allowed to prevail upon that and other Colonial questions, would not be found to abandon authority where it could be honourably maintained, and that the solution of the question to be arrived at might be one which would be consistent with the good government of the Transvaal, the security of the other British possessions in South Africa, and last, but not least, the honour of England.
§ Moved, That there be laid before this House, Papers on the subject of a proclamation recently published by the Dutch Triumvirate in the Transvaal purporting to give an historical retrospect of events connected with the annexation of the Transvaal and previous thereto, and justifying the rising of the Boors against Her Majesty's authority.—[The Lord Brabourne.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, with reference to the Motion of my noble Friend, he moves for Papers, but does not mention the particular Papers he desires to have produced. We have already presented a considerable number of Papers on the subject of the Transvaal, and shall present more. But I take it to be the main object of the speech of my noble Friend to controvert the statements in the Boers' Proclamation to which he has referred. That was a perfectly natural and legitimate object, and in a great deal of what my noble Friend has said on that subject I entirely concur. The Proclamation, which has been in your Lordships' hands for some time, quotes in the terms of the Sand River Convention, and declares, in the plainest manner, that never has any provision of that Convention been violated so as to furnish England with even a pretence of right to withdraw from her obligations. That is a very bold assertion; but it is not borne out by the facts. My noble Friend has quoted the authority of individuals with regard to the carrying on of a quasi-slave trade. The words of the Convention in regard to that trade are exceedingly explicit. "It is agreed that no slavery should be permitted or practised in the country." My noble Friend has adduced a considerable amount of evidence on the subject, and your Lordships are aware that for the last 30 years the subject has been from time to time brought before Parliament, and I think that irrefutable evidence has been brought forward to 1367 show that, whether or not with the direct countenance, at least without being prevented by the Government of the Transvaal Republic, the Boers did, in many instances, violate that provision of the Convention. But, in speaking of the countenance given to slavery by the Government of the Transvaal, it is of importance that your Lordships should remember that what was called the South African Republic consisted, up to 1865, of three different portions. One was that of which Pretoria is the capital, and I believe that its Government did exert, itself to see that the Convention was duly observed. But there were two other divisions, one which consisted of the territory around Lydenburg with the Secocoeni country, and another, an independent community of Boors, whose territory lay further north, and was, I believe, a more lawless community than either of the others, and the charges made against the Boers generally might be more especially directed against them. President Burgers, the last President of the Republic, when, in 1875, he was in this country and in communication with Lord Carnarvon, admitted that the trade in black ivory—that is, in children —did exist in some parts of these latter territories before they were united. I believe, my Lords, that these transactions, for the most part, took place a considerable time ago. My noble Friend referred to Dr. Livingstone's letter, but it was written towards the end of 1852; and there is no doubt that in the earlier stages of the Republic, when the community was far less settled than it be-came, outrages of the kind referred to were more frequent. It was difficult to procure any clear and direct evidence of the existence of the slave trade, because those who engaged in it sheltered themselves under a system of apprenticeship; but Lord Clarendon said that if it was found necessary to apprentice so many orphan children, it was strange that there were so many orphan children found to be apprenticed. The answer sought to be given was that in the raids made by the Boers upon the Natives the children abandoned by their parents had to be taken care of, and were so by being apprenticed. But there were other proofs that the charges made were not without foundation, and a curious piece of evidence is furnished by a letter written by the wife of a Boer, in which 1368 she states that'a Boer had come home with six head of cattle and one Kaffir girl, and that another came home with 32 large Kaffir girls whom he was disposing of for half-a-sovereign a-piece. It is to be feared that this kind of thing took place at one time very frequently; and, therefore, my Lords, I entirely deny the truth of the assertion made in the Proclamation that never had any provision of the Sand River Convention been violated. Then on this statement hangs another. It was said that we violated the 5th Article of the Convention, which had reference to the sale of ammunition to the Natives. It was agreed that ammunition might be sold to the emigrant farmers; but its sale to the Natives was prohibited. The Boers said we violated that Article of the Convention by allowing ammunition to be sold to the Natives. Now, the facts of the case are those. Not long after the Convention was concluded, frequent complaints were made on the ground that the Boers were violating the stipulations of the Convention against slavery; and our Government said that it was a perfectly one sided stipulation which allowed the Boors to supply themselves with ammunition for the purpose of making wars on the Natives, and thus of carrying on the slave trade, the Natives not being allowed to have ammunition to defend themselves. That was said so far back as the time of the government of Sir George Grey, and that was the answer that was made in reference to the violation of the 5th Article. But there is another part of the Proclamation to which no reference has been made by my noble Friend, and as it is on the Table and has been published in the newspapers, I should not like to appear to acquiesce in it by passing it without notice. It may be summed up by a reference to what is said towards the end of the Proclamation. They make a long statement as to what they say took place at the outbreak of this insurrection, and they end by stating that before the whole world they charged Sir Owen Lanyon, first, with having commenced the wars without notice, and next with carrying on the war with a disregard of the rules of civilized warfare. Well, my Lords, I have had no means of communicating with Sir Owen Lanyon, and I am not, therefore, able to contradict the charges made on his authority; but from my knowledge of 1369 the British authorities in the Transvaal, and of the whole course of conduct pursued by them, I should be extremely surprised if it is not found that these accusations are wholly without foundation. Of course, until I receive a statement of the facts I cannot make any positive assertion; I simply say that I believe the charges will not be found to be sustained. Of course, at the outbreak of an insurrection of this kind, occurrences will take place which must be regretted. But when it is said that Sir Owen Lan-yon carried on the war contrary to the rules of civilized warfare, I can only say that I utterly and entirely disbelieve that assertion. I wish now briefly to refer to what my noble Friend stated with respect to the annexation of the Transvaal. He told us that when the Transvaal was annexed, no one who had been connected with the Colonial Office on our side, and no one belonging to our Party, objected to the annexation; and my noble Friend referred to a speech he had made, and to a speech of Mr. W. E. Forster's. Well, my Lords, I have always been perfectly candid as to the view I took. I said very little on the subject in this House. I said more in private conversation. But the gist of my opinion was this—that if it were true, as had been represented on what were said to be good grounds, that the Boers of the Transvaal Republic acquiesced in the annexation, then that it would be advantageous to South Africa that the Transvaal should be incorporated in the British possessions. Further than that I never went. I am not bringing an accusation against Lord Carnarvon; for it is very obvious that his utterances on the question whether the Boers were prepared to acquiesce in the annexation must depend upon the information which reached him. I have always said that the facts as stated to him, and upon which alone he could form an opinion, did appear to furnish sufficient grounds for the annexation; but, unfortunately, those facts were, not misrepresented, but misapprehended by his agents on the spot. It is unfortunate it should have occurred; but when we are told we annexed this territory from a greed of dominion and from a desire to destroy the independence of a Republic which had claims on our sympathy, then I agree with my noble Friend. I do not believe for one moment that the late Government were actuated 1370 simply by a desire to extend the Queen's dominions or to increase our responsibilities. It is evident that the circumstances which induced them to proceed to the annexation were the condition of affairs in the Transvaal, and the fact that its condition involved it in wars of a dangerous kind to all the South African Colonies; and they thought that, in order to avert this danger, it was best that it should be placed under the dominion of the Queen. Whether the conclusion was right or wrong, the motives were not motives of which this country has any reason to be ashamed. Many people express confident opinions on this subject without taking the trouble to inform themselves of the facts. If your Lordships will make yourselves acquainted with the extremely complicated questions which have arisen since the Boers left their original settlements in South Africa, and which have been a puzzle to British statesmen for a long time, you will see that there was no course possible to the British Government which was not open to many objections; and all that we could be expected to do was to adopt that course which appeared to present the least difficulty. There are those who have said that the only way to solve the difficulties was for us to withdraw from the Transvaal and to leave it to its independence. Whatever there may be to recommend that solution, it must not be supposed that by adopting it you would escape from all difficulties. You have a territory surrounded by Native Tribes, many of them warlike, unsubdued by the White population, and disputes with whom at any time may bring about Native wars. There are the Zulus; and there can be no doubt that the late Zulu War was connected with the difficulties between the Transvaal Boers and the Zulus. There are the Swazis, who are practically independent. There are also the people of Secocoeni, who deemed himself independent of the Boors. You went with a strong expedition and subdued them, and it is impossible to say you incurred no responsibility towards those whom you subdued. Your position is not the same that it was previously. The relation between the Boers and the Natives in a considerable portion of this territory is illustrated by a passage in a despatch of Sir Garnet Wolseley. He was talking to a Basuto Chief, who claimed a district occupied by 350,000 1371 Natives, and, when asked how that could be, he said—"I drove the Boers out, and occupied it, as they had done, by the right of conquest." When we speak of the Boers holding undisputed sway over the territory they claim, we are speaking of a territory in different parts of which different conditions exist. Under these circumstances, we have endeavoured, during the last three years, and not without success, to restore order. My Predecessor was not able, and I was not able, to recommend the grant of free institutions. That was not in the least because we did not desire to see thorn enjoyed; but, unfortunately, such was the antipathy which a considerable portion of the Boer population showed to our rule that it was evidently impossible to form a free Assembly to co-operate with us in the government of the country. There we touch the root of the whole question. These emigrant farmers left our territory because they did not acquiesce in our rule. We have not succeeded in conciliating them, and their hostility has culminated in the insurrection now going on. I hope the House will pardon me going further into the question how it is to be brought to a conclusion. "We are in a position of great difficulty; many phases of it are very serious; and the mode of attaining a satisfactory settlement will require much deliberation and discussion. I do not believe the moment has come when I could with advantage place before your Lordships any scheme of settlement or state the views of the Government. It is well we should not forget that the difficulties we have to contend with are not confined to the Transvaal. There is the Orange Free State, which is a much more settled community than the Transvaal, and is governed far better. I am happy to say that, up to this time, President Brand, of whom I cannot speak too highly, has shown himself exceedingly friendly, and has observed neutrality; but no doubt he has a difficult task. The ties of relationship and blood connected with their past history between the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Boors are so close, that it must be obvious to all that it is a matter of considerable difficulty for the President to maintain the position which he has taken up. The last intelligence I have received affords, I am happy to say, no indication of the Orange Free State 1372 departing from its position of neutrality, and that I look upon as a good omen for the future. But we must not forget, also, that in the Cape Colony at least two-thirds of the Colonists are of Dutch extraction. I have had conversations with more than one distinguished Cape Colonist of Dutch extraction, and I have always found they held this language—"We are perfectly loyal to the Queen and the British connection; but do not mistake our feelings in this matter. These men you are fighting against in the Transvaal are our own kindred, and blood is thicker than water." They watch what is going on with the deepest sympathy and anxiety; and there can be no doubt that every blow we strike in the Transvaal is a blow felt by our own Dutch subjects in the Cape Colony. Hence it is of vital importance to the Queen's dominion in South Africa, to the whole future of that country, not of the Transvaal only, but also to the peace and tranquillity of our own Colonies, that this unhappy war should be brought to a termination as speedily as possible.
§ EARL CADOGANsaid, that while many on the Opposition side of the House sympathized with the views of the noble Lord who introduced the question, they felt with the noble Earl who had just sat down that this was not a time at which these matters could be discussed with advantage to either country. There was no doubt that debate just now on the subject of the Transvaal would be of great disadvantage to the public service; but he questioned the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who said that, while he agreed with the annexation at the time it took place, he had reason to believe that Lord Carnarvon had misapprehended the information which he had received, and that the facts had been misrepresented by the agents. The result of the statement would appear to be that the noble Lord saw reason to doubt the wisdom of the course he approved at the time, and that, coming from a noble Lord in his position, was an admission of considerable importance and gravity.
THE PAUL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he never thought that Lord Carnarvon had misapprehended; but that the agents had not misrepresented, but misapprehended.
§ EARL CADOGANsaid, he did not think the noble Earl's explanation much altered the case. He had no intention of arguing the question of the annexation of the Transvaal again; but he must say that from all the information he had obtained, and from all the reading he had been able to go through, he saw no reason to depart from the opinion that that annexation was necessary; that it had not been productive of anything but good until this dissatisfaction had been aroused by those who believed it was their business to arouse it, and which showed itself in the form of the present unfortunate rebellion. They, on that side of the House, had no reason to be ashamed of their action in regard to the annexation; and, until they saw further reason to change their opinions, they should still think it was necessary at the time, and continue to trust that the present Government would not listen to those who advised them to reverse the policy which led to the annexation.
§ Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.