Chapter LXXXV: Section 29 (5)

A new constitution for Servia was promulgated by King
Alexander, at Belgrade, on the 19th of April, 1901. Of the
character of the instrument, the King had previously given
intimations in an interview conceded to the editor of the
"Revue d'Orient," the account of which, translated for the
"London Times," is partly as follows: "Our three Constitutions
of 1869, 1888, and 1901 differ from each other in important
matters of principle. That of 1869 practically amounted to
absolutism, if I may thus qualify any Constitution. It is true
that the executive power retained but few prerogatives, but
that was deceptive, as the rights of the Legislature were
surrounded by exceptions and restrictions which made it easy
to paralyse and annihilate them at any moment. The
Constitution of 1888 had the contrary defects. It subordinated
the executive power to that of the Legislature, only leaving to
the former an altogether insufficient sphere of action. It had
another great fault. It was excessively doctrinaire and
theoretical, affecting to foresee everything and to regulate
everything, so that the legislative power was bound hand and
foot and could not legislate freely. The Constitution which
will be promulgated on April 19, the anniversary of the day
when the fortress of Belgrade was finally evacuated by the
Turks in 1867, is a charter similar to those which organize
the public powers in several countries of Europe, as, for
instance, in England and in France. It settles the form of
government, the powers of the King and of the State, the
rights of subjects, the working of the national
representation, &c. But it leaves to the Legislature the
settlement of all details. What more particularly
distinguishes the Constitution of 1901 from that of 1869 is
that it prevents the use and abuse of ordinances by the
Executive, which will be obliged to frame special laws in
every case—that is to say, laws accepted and approved of by
the King, the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies. Thus
legality will henceforth be the regulating wheel in the
machinery of government. The Chamber of Deputies will be much
better organized, as the enlightened classes will be much more
numerously represented. The Constitution of 1901 will also
present great advantages over that of 1888. The Legislature
will control the acts of the Government as far as can possibly
be desired. At the same time the constitutional regime as
established in the new Constitution will give the King all the
power that he ought to retain in a country that is still new,
like Servia, without diminishing any of the inviolable
liberties of the nation.

"I attach very great importance to the new political
institution with which I am going to endow Servia—namely, an
Upper Chamber. Considering that it already exists, not only in
monarchical countries, but also in most Republics, as, for
instance, in France and the United States, I cannot admit that
it should be regarded as involving the slightest aristocratic
tendency or idea. I know my country well enough to be sure
that I shall find a sufficient number of high-class
politicians to recruit the Senate, and that enough will remain
for the Chamber of Deputies. I am likewise fully persuaded
that the legislative task of the Parliament will be much
better performed when the Chamber of Deputies is conscious
that above it there exists a Senate whose business it is to
revise and improve the laws which it has elaborated, of course
for the greater benefit of the nation. Then, again, the Senate
will form a moderating element which was much wanting in our
Legislature. What Servia is suffering from is not any lack of
legislation, but from the circumstances that the existing laws
were hastily framed or were the outcome of party rancour. If
we had formerly had a Senate composed of men of experience and
good patriots, they would never have consented to the conclusion
of so many onerous loans, to the application of so many
iniquitous measures, nor to the convocation of the special
tribunal, 'le tribunal extraordinaire,' of 1899.

"At first the Radical party was not favourable to the
institution of an Upper Chamber, but it now recognizes the
great advantages it will offer, and has rallied to my project.
The Progressist party has always been favourable to it. The
majority of the Liberal party has also adhered to it. I
therefore believe that this new institution will be of the
greatest service to the country. All that is required, and
with a little good will it can be easily done, is that the
members of the two Chambers should endeavour honestly,
sincerely, and loyally to work for the good of the State and
of the nation. If I have not thought right to raise the
qualification for the suffrage, as desired by some people, it
is because I did not wish to disfranchise any of those who
have enjoyed the right of voting during the last 35 years. I
do not wish to restrict any of the rights of the nation.

{451}

"The application of the new Constitution will be the great
task of my Government, in which I have every confidence. The
Prime Minister, Dr. Vuitch, has the sympathy and support not
only of his own party but of all who would like to see the
country governed in a liberal spirit. His presence at the head
of the Ministry is a pledge for the active and sincere
co-operation of all elements of order and progress. … As soon
as the new Constitution has been promulgated, the Government
will invite the co-operation of all those which admit its
necessity and fitness. A large Conservative party will thus be
formed which will have the requisite power and authority for
all purposes of government, for the application of the
Constitution, and for the elaboration of financial and
economic laws necessary for the progress of the country.

"As regards the question of the succession to the Throne, I
wanted to settle it finally, as the members of the reigning
dynasty are not numerous unless the remote collateral lines be
included, which is not possible. Moreover, everybody wished me
to take in this matter such decisions as I might think proper
in view of securing the continuation of the Servian Monarchy.
The first thing to be done was to safeguard the rights of the
direct line without seeking to bind ourselves by the Salic
Law, which there is really no reason to apply in our country.
I should add here that there are no anti-dynastic elements in
Servia, with the exception, perhaps, of a few hare-brained
individuals who really do not enter into account. My people
are profoundly attached to the reigning dynasty, and never
lose an opportunity of showing me their loyalty. It is the
same with all the political parties.

"Before promulgating the Constitution I decided to consult the
most influential members of the parties in office. They agreed
with me, and promised me to assist harmoniously in the work. I
have also consulted the leading members of the Liberal party,
and with two or three exceptions they have given me the same
assurances. Such being the case, I may say that the
Constitution of 1901 is not a production of my will or of my
good pleasure, but that it is the result of an understanding
between the Sovereign and the leaders of the three political
parties. I consequently reckon upon their sincere and active
co-operation, and I trust they will not fail me. I am firmly
convinced that the new Constitution will act as a fresh and
vigorous stimulus to my country, and that it will bring it
that calm and stability which it sorely needs. I sincerely
regard it as a source of prosperity and welfare for Servia."

SEVERALTY ACT, The Indian.

See (in this volume)
INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1899-1900.

SEYMOUR, Vice-Admiral Sir Edward:
Expedition to relieve Peking.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE 10-26).

SEYYIDIEH, The province of.

See (in this volume)
BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE: A. D. 1895-1897.

SHAFTER, General:
Commanding the expedition against Santiago de Cuba.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

SHAFTER, General:
Surrender of Spanish forces at Santiago and all eastern Cuba.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY 4-17).

SHAFTER, General:
Report of sickness in army.
Removal of troops to Montauk Point.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: CUBA).

SHANGHAI.

"Shanghai is the New York of China. It occupies a position on
the coast quite similar to that of New York on our own eastern
coast, and its percentage of importations into China is about
the same as that which New York enjoys in the United States.
The large share of the foreign trade of China which Shanghai
controls is due largely to its position at the mouth of the
great artery through which trade flows to and from China—the
Yangtze-Kiang. Transportation in bulk in China up to the
present time having been almost exclusively by water, and the
Yangtze being navigable by steamers and junks for more than
2,000 miles, thus reaching the most populous, productive, and
wealthy sections of the country, naturally a very large share
of the foreign commerce entering or leaving that country
passes through Shanghai, where foreign merchants, bankers,
trade representatives, trade facilities, and excellent docking
and steamship conveniences exist. The lines of no less than
eight great steamship companies center at Shanghai, where they
land freight and passengers from their fleets of vessels which
are counted by hundreds, while the smaller vessels, for river
and coastwise service, and the native junks are counted
literally by thousands. The Yangtze from Shanghai westward to
Hankow, a distance of 582 miles, is navigable for very large
steamships that are capable of coasting as well as river
service. Hankow, which with its suburbs has nearly a million
people, is the most important of the interior cities, being a
great distributing center for trade to all parts of central
and western China and thus the river trade between Shanghai
and Hankow is of itself enormous, while the coastwise trade
from Shanghai, both to the north and south, and that by the
Grand Canal to Tientsin, the most important city of northern
China, is also very large."

_United States, Bureau of Statistics,
Monthly Summary, March, 1899, page 2191._

"When the English chose this position, in 1842, for their
mercantile settlement, it seemed difficult to believe that
they would ever succeed in making the place a rival of Canton
or of Amoy. It is true that Shanghai possessed important
commercial relations already, and the great geographical
advantage of commanding the entrance to the navigable river
which traverses the whole empire from west to east; but the
builders of the city there had to struggle with enormous
difficulties of soil and climate. They had to solidify and
drain the land, dig canals, dry up marshes, cleanse the air of
its miasms, besides incessantly dredging and clearing the
channel, to keep it open for their ships. The first European
merchants established at Shanghai were favored in fortune by
the national disasters of China. The Taiping war drove
fugitives in multitudes to the territory conceded to
foreigners, and when the town of Soutcheou was destroyed, in
1860, Shanghai succeeded it as the great city of the country."

_É. Reclus,
Nouvelle géographie universelle,
volume 7, page 455._

SHANGHAI: A. D. 1898.
Rioting consequent on French desecration of a cemetery.
Extension of foreign settlements.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899.

SHANTUNG, The "Boxer" outbreak in.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

SHIMONOSEKI, Text of the Treaty of.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.

{452}

SHIPPING OF THE WORLD: In 1900.

Statement of number and net and gross tonnage of steam and
sailing vessels of over 100 tons of the several countries of
the world, as recorded in Lloyd's Register for 1900-1901
[dated July 1, 1900].

_United States, Commissioner of Navigation,
Annual Report, 1900, page 125._

FLAG STEAM. SAIL. TOTAL.
------------------------- ------------------ -------------
Number. Net tons. Gross tons. Number. Net tons. Number. Tonnage.

British: United Kingdom. 7,020 7,072,401 11,513,759 1,894 1,727,687 8,914 13,241,446 Colonies. 910 378,925 635,331 1,014 384,477 1,924 1,019,808 Total. 7,930 7,451,326 12,149,090 2,908 2,112,164 10,838 14,261,254

American (United States): Sea. 690 594,237 878,564 2,130 1,156,498 2,820 2,035,062 Lake. 242 436,979 576,402 73 138,807 315 715,209 Total. 932 1,031,216 1,454,966 2,203 1,295,305 3,135 2,750,271

Argentine. 95 36,938 57,239 106 30,407 201 87,646 Austro-Hungarian 214 240,808 387,471 56 28,613 270 416,084 Belgian. 115 111,624 162,493 2 420 117 162,913 Brazilian. 215 85,799 133,507 117 29,580 332 163,087 Chilean. 52 38,960 62,872 75 48,106 127 110,978 Chinese. 48 41,847 65,721 1 573 49 66,294 Colombian. 1 555 877 5 1,110 6 1,987 Danish. 369 240,599 412,273 433 106,738 802 519,011 Dutch. 289 307,574 467,209 117 63,068 406 530,277 French. 662 542,305 1,052,193 552 298,309 1,214 1,350,562 German. 1,209 1,344,605 2,159,919 501 490,114 1,710 2,650,033 Greek. 139 111,797 178,137 230 65,957 369 245,094 Haitian. 5 912 1,750 2 414 7 2,164 Italian. 312 343,020 540,349 864 443,306 1,176 983,655 Japanese. 484 303,303 488,187 582 86,370 1,006 574,557 Mexican. 25 6,562 11,460 13 3,081 38 14,541 Montenegrin. 1 1,064 1,857 14 3,513 15 5,370 Norwegian. 806 467,123 764,683 1,574 876,129 2,380 1,640,812 Peruvian. 3 3,204 4,869 33 9,607 36 14,476 Portuguese. 48 37,153 57,664 156 53,391 204 111,055 Roumanian. 17 9,686 17,361 3 659 20 18,020 Russian. 496 292,277 469,496 750 251,405 1,246 720,901 Sarawakian. 2 244 418 2 418 Siamese. 4 821 1,435 1 294 5 1,729 Spanish. 422 416,882 642,231 175 52,549 597 694,780 Swedish. 678 260,023 418,550 755 218,722 1,433 637,272 Turkish. 135 58,974 94,781 170 48,709 305 143,490 Uruguayan. 17 6,438 10,468 19 4,032 36 14,500 Venezuelan. 12 2,450 4,246 8 1,185 20 5,431 Zanzibarian. 3 1,871 2,808 3 2,808 Other countries: Hawaii. 23 11,185 16,922 24 29,707 47 46,629 Cuba. 35 17,651 27,040 11 2,410 46 29,450 Philippine Islands 69 19,587 31,099 42 8,236 111 39,335 Various: Arabia, Salvador, Ecuador, Liberia, Samos, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Egypt, Persia, Porto Rico, etc. 31 10,130 17,717 22 9,127 53 26,844

Total. 15,898 13,800,513 22,309,358 12,524 6,674,370 28,422 29,043,728

SHIRE HIGHLANDS, The.

See (in this volume)
BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA PROTECTORATE.

SHOA.

See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.

SHUN-CH'ING, Anti-missionary insurrection at.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899 (JUNE-JANUARY).

SIAH CHAI, or Vegetarians, The.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).

SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.
Declaration between Great Britain and France
with regard to Siam.

A declaration of agreement, in part as follows, between Great
Britain and France, was signed at London, January 15, 1896:

"I.
The Governments of Great Britain and France engage to one
another that neither of them will, without the consent of the
other, in any case, or under any pretext, advance their armed
forces into the region which is comprised in the basins of the
Petcha Bouri, Meiklong, Menam, and Bang Pa Kong (Petriou)
Rivers and their respective tributaries, together with the
extent of coast from Muong Bang Tapan to Muong Pase, the
basins of the rivers on which those two places are situated,
and the basins of the other rivers, the estuaries of which are
included in that coast; and including also the territory lying
to the north of the basin of the Menam, and situated between
the Anglo-Siamese frontier, the Mekong River, and the eastern
watershed of the Me Ing. They further engage not to acquire
within this region any special privilege or advantage which
shall not be enjoyed in common by, or equally open to, Great
Britain and France, and their nationals and dependents. These
stipulations, however, shall not be interpreted as derogating
from the special clauses which, in virtue of the Treaty
concluded on the 3rd October, 1893, between France and Siam,
apply to a zone of 25 kilometers on the right bank of the
Mekong and to the navigation of that river.

{453}

II.
Nothing in the foregoing clause shall hinder any action on
which the two Powers may agree, and which they shall think
necessary in order to uphold the independence of the Kingdom
of Siam. But they engage not to enter into any separate
Agreement permitting a third Power to take any action from
which they are bound by the present Declaration themselves to
abstain.

III.
From the mouth of the Nam Huok northwards as far as the
Chinese frontier the thalweg of the Mekong shall form the
limit of the possessions or spheres of influence of Great
Britain and France. It is agreed that the nationals and
dependents of each of the two countries shall not exercise any
jurisdiction or authority within the possessions or sphere of
influence of the other."

In a despatch to the British Ambassador at Paris, written on
the same day, Lord Salisbury explained the intent and purpose
of the agreement as follows: "It might be thought that because
we have engaged ourselves, and have received the engagement of
France, not under any circumstances to invade this territory,
that therefore we are throwing doubt upon the complete title
and rights of the Siamese to the remainder of their kingdom,
or, at all events, treating those rights with disregard. Any
such interpretation would entirely misrepresent the intention
with which this arrangement has been signed. We have selected
a particular area for the application of the stipulations of
this Treaty, not because the title of the King of Siam to
other portions of his dominions is less valid, but because it
is the area which affects our interests as a commercial
nation. The valley of the Menam is eminently fitted to receive
a high industrial development. Possibly in course of time it
may be the site of lines of communication which will be of
considerable importance to neighbouring portions of the
British Empire. There seems every prospect that capital will
flow into this region if reasonable security is offered for
its investment, and great advantage would result to the
commerce and industry of the world, and especially of Great
Britain, if capitalists could be induced to make such an
application of the force which they command. But the history
of the region in which Siam is situated has not in recent
years been favourable to the extension of industrial
enterprise, or to the growth of that confidence which is the
first condition of material improvement. A large territory to
the north has passed from the hands of the Burmese Government
to those of Great Britain. A large territory to the east has
passed from the hands of its former possessors to those of
France. The events of this recent history certainly have a
tendency to encourage doubts of the stability of the Siamese
dominion; and without in any degree sharing in those doubts,
or admitting the possibility, within any future with which we
have to deal, of the Siamese independence being compromised,
Her Majesty's Government could not but feel that there would
be an advantage in giving some security to the commercial
world that, in regard to the region where the most active
development is likely to take place, no further disturbances
of territorial ownership are to be apprehended."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: France, Number 2, 1896, pages 1-3)._

Perhaps the above explanation can be better understood after
reading the following:

"In the early eighties France commenced the subjugation of
Tonquin. … It was not until 1893 that France openly attacked
Siam. The demand was subtly formulated—on behalf, not of the
Government of the French Republic, but of 'the Empire of
Annam.' But even so the French had been in Annam for perhaps a
quarter of a century, whereas Siam could show an undisturbed,
undisputed tenure of the Mekong River's 'rive gauche' for at
least ninety years. … The cession to France of territory
amounting to rather more than one-third of the entire kingdom
was insisted upon; and in March 1893 that Power sent the
ship-of-war Lutin to Bangkok, where she remained for months a
standing menace. A rigorous blockade of the Siamese seaboard
followed, resulting in a few short days in complete surrender
of the disputed territory to France and the payment of a heavy
war indemnity. … By the Anglo-French Convention of last year
[as given above] the King of Siam's position became, to say
the least, slightly anomalous. That agreement practically
amounted to the fair division, between France and England, of
the whole of Siam save that portion situate in the fertile
valley of the Meinam, whose autonomy they still guarantee to
preserve. … France holds, in addition to the long-coveted port
of Chantabûn, that part of the province of Luang Phrabang
which is situate upon the right bank of the Mekong. … The
Siamese king is 'nulli secundus' among Oriental monarchs as a
progressive ruler. And fate has been unkind to him indeed! He
has encouraged English customs and the English language by all
the means in his power—has taken the kindliest possible
interest in the introduction of electric light, electric
tramways, &c., into his capital—has endeavoured to model his
army and navy, his prison and other systems, upon the English
method—and has in person opened the first railway (that
connecting Bangkok with Pâknam) in Siam. It is, indeed, one of
the strangest and most interesting sights, as you stroll
through the streets of the capital, to witness the 'riksha and
gharry of comparative barbarism travelling in juxtaposition to
the electric tramcar and the bicycle! And for his broad and
enlightened views the King of Siam has been requited by the
wholesale and utterly unjustifiable plunder of his most
fertile lands."

_Percy Cross Standing,
The Significance of the Siamese Visit
(Nineteenth Century, June, 1897)._

Frequent collisions between French and Siamese in the
so-called "neutral zone" on the right bank of the Mekong
continued, until a new convention was agreed upon in May,
1890. This gave to France the province of Luang-Phrabang, in
return for which she agreed to withdraw entirely from the
neutral territory and from the port of Chantabûn.

SIAM: A. D. 1898.
Gift of relics of Buddha.

See (in this volume)
BUDDHA.

SIAM: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

SIAN FU, SI-NGAN-FU, The Chinese Imperial Court at.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SIBERIA.

See (in this volume)
RUSSIA IN ASIA.

SIBERIAN ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1805, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900.

{454}

SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.
Extension of British authority over the Hinterland of the
Colony of Sierra Leone.
The hut tax.
Insurrection of natives.

"Immediately adjoining the Colony of Sierra Leone, lying to
the northward and eastward, is the Hinterland, the boundaries
of which were defined by the Agreement between Great Britain
and France which was concluded 21st January 1895. The extreme
depth from south to north is about 210 miles, lying between 7°
and 10° north latitude, and 180 miles from east to west, lying
between 10° 40' and 13° 20' of west longitude. The estimated area
is rather more than 30,000 square miles—about the size of
Ireland. … Unlike many regions on the west coast of Africa,
the country is, for the most part, well watered by rivers and
running streams. The population of the Hinterland has not been
ascertained. It has been variously estimated, before the
present troubles, at from about 750,000 up to about 2,000,000.
The trade and revenue of the Colony depend almost entirely on
the Hinterland. A very large proportion of the goods imported
into the Colony are carried into and consumed in the
Hinterland. These goods are paid for by means of the products
of the Hinterland, which are exported, and the profits derived
from the exchange enable the merchants to pay the Customs
duties, which constitute the bulk of the Colonial revenue. The
territories forming the Hinterland are, according to the
native organisation, ruled over by a large number of Chiefs
(or Kings, as they used to be, and still in native parlance
are, called). The portions of country under each Chief are
well ascertained, and recognised by the various Chiefs and
their subjects. …

"The relations between the English Government and the Chiefs
at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement between France
and England in 1895 was … that some of the Chiefs whose
territories lay most adjacent to the Colony of Sierra Leone
had contracted with the English Crown certain treaties of
cession, and treaties directed to definite objects of amity
and good offices. In addition there had sprung up by usage a
limited consensual and advisory jurisdiction, under which
Chiefs as well as persons not Chiefs would bring their
differences (mainly as to territorial boundaries) before the
Governor of Sierra Leone as a sort of arbitrator, and
implicitly follow his awards. This jurisdiction was exercised
over an area of no defined limits, so far as any rules were
concerned. As a fact, it was limited by conditions of distance
and facility of travel, so that whilst the usage was most
established in the countries nearest to Freetown, there was
none in the more distant regions, or if there was any it was
at most so rudimentary as to be jurally of no account. … I
have not been able to trace any instance in which, either
under treaty or any other form of consent, or without consent,
the English Government has imposed, or endeavoured to impose
any direct taxation upon the Chiefs or people of the
Hinterland prior to 1896.

"The agreement between France and Great Britain delimited the
respective spheres of interest of the two countries south and
west of the Middle or Upper Niger, and thus defined for
England in the Hinterland of Sierra Leone a territory within
which, so far as concerned any question between France and
England, England was at liberty to exercise whatever species
or extent of jurisdiction she might consider proper. It made,
of course, no alteration on the existing native organisation,
nor upon the existing relations between England and the native
Chiefs, who were not parties to the agreement in any sense. …
On 31st August 1896 a Proclamation was published setting forth
that Her Majesty had assumed a Protectorate over the
territories adjacent to the Colony of Sierra Leone in which
Her Majesty had acquired power and jurisdiction. For purposes
of administration the Hinterland was divided into five
districts, intended to be of about equal size, avoiding
severance as far as possible by the district boundary of the
territories of Paramount Chiefs. These districts have been
named as the Karene, Ronietta, Bandajuma, Pangmua, and
Koinadugu districts. In anticipation of the arrangements that
might become necessary for the government of the Protectorate,
an Order of the Queen in Council had been made on 24th August
1895, … whereby, … Her Majesty was pleased, by and with the
advice of her Privy Council, to order that it shall be lawful
for the Legislative Council, for the time being, of the Colony
of Sierra Leone, by Ordinance or Ordinances, to exercise and
provide for giving effect to all such jurisdiction as Her
Majesty may at any time, before or after the passing of the
Order in Council, have acquired in the said territories
adjacent to the Colony of Sierra Leone. … Following upon the
Order of the Queen in Council, an Ordinance, entitled 'An
Ordinance to Determine the mode of exercising Her Majesty's
Jurisdiction in the Territories adjacent to the Colony of
Sierra Leone,' was passed by the Legislative Council and
Governor of Sierra Leone for the Government of the
Protectorate, on 16th September 1896."

_Great Britain,
Report and Correspondence on Insurrection in
the Sierra Leone Protectorate
(Parliamentary Publications:
Papers by Command, 1899, C. 9388, pages 10-17)._

The Ordinance above mentioned, which was reenacted, with some
changes, in September, 1897, provided, among other things, for
the imposition of a house tax, or hut tax, upon the natives,
and this proved to be the main cause of a serious native
revolt in the Protectorate. "By way of asserting the Crown's
ownership of all lands, whether in use and occupation or
not—and also of attempting to make the people defray the cost
of governing them by methods they resent—the Protectorate
Ordinance imposes a 'house tax' of five shillings a year, and,
in the case of 'houses with four rooms or more,' of ten
shillings a year, on every 'householder'; the same to be paid
in 'sterling coin' on or after the 1st January in each year,
or, in default of payment on demand, to be distrained for with
so much addition as will defray the cost of removing the
property and disposing of it for 'the price current at the
nearest market.' The absurdity of thus importing the mechanism
of civilisation into 'house tax' levying among these ignorant
savages matches the injustice of the tax itself. The mud
hovels to be taxed are rarely worth more than the equivalent
of two or three shillings apiece, and shillings or other
'sterling coin' are rarely seen or handled by the natives,
such wages as they earn being generally paid in kind, and such
trade as they carry on being nearly always in the way of barter.
{455}
Few who are not chiefs or headmen own property worth as much
as five shillings, and property for which five shillings could
be obtained 'at the nearest market' might be worth the
equivalent of five pounds to them. There was no attempt to
raise the proposed house or hut tax before last January
[1898], and perhaps none of the natives have even yet any
understanding of the clauses of the Protectorate Ordinance
providing them with new-fangled 'courts of Justice,' and
taking from them all proprietary rights in their land. But as
soon as a proclamation was issued on 21st August, 1896,
notifying the contemplated changes, all who heard of them were
reasonably alarmed, and wherever the news spread seeds of fresh
discontent were sown. …

"There were burning of huts, buffeting of chiefs, and so
forth, in the south and east, as well as in the north, where,
owing to the alleged recalcitrancy of Bai Bureh and the zeal
of Captain Sharpe, the District Commissioner, the havoc was
greatest. Early in February several chiefs and headmen were
brought to Freetown from Port Lokko in manacles, to be tried,
or punished without trial, on a charge of 'refusing to comply
with the provisions of the Protectorate Ordinance, and
inciting their subjects to resist the law.' 'The most
affecting part of the matter,' says the newspaper report, 'is
that the natives all loudly affirm their unswerving loyalty to
the Government, and say that they do not refuse to pay the hut
tax because they do not wish to, but because they really
cannot pay.' Their apologies were not listened to. Instead, a
detachment of the West India Regiment was sent up to assist
Captain Sharpe in the little war on which he had already
embarked. A futile attempt to arrest Bai Bureh on 18th
February led to a general uprising, and the first battle was
fought on 3rd March, when the town of Karina was recovered
from the 'insurgents' who had occupied it, and over sixty of
them were killed. Another fight occurred at Port Lokko, on 5th
March, when the 'insurgents' lost about forty more. These
victories being insufficient, fresh troops were sent up in
batches, until the entire force of conquerors numbered 800 or
upwards. They found it easier to cow than to conquer the
people, and the unequal struggle went on for three months. At
the end of May operations had to be suspended during the rainy
season, and before they can be renewed it may be hoped that
peace will be patched up. Already, indeed, the 'rebellion'
appears to be practically crushed, and with it all the
civilisation and all the commerce that had been planted in the
Karina district. Hundreds of natives have been shot down, many
more hundreds have died of starvation. Nearly all the huts
that it was proposed to tax have been destroyed, either by the
owners themselves, or by the policemen and soldiers."

_H. R. Fox Bourne,
Sierra Leone Troubles
(Fortnightly Review, August, 1898)._

SILVER QUESTION, The: A. D. 1895 (January-February).
Attitude of Free Silver majority in the U. S. Senate
towards the Treasury gold reserve.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1895 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY);
and 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

SILVER QUESTION, The: A. D. 1896.
In the American Presidential election.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

SILVER QUESTION, The: A. D. 1896-1898.
The Indianapolis Monetary Commission report and
Secretary Gage's plan in Congress.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896-1898.

SILVER QUESTION, The: A. D. 1897.
Negotiations by envoys from the United States for an
international bi-metallic agreement.

See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SILVER QUESTION, The: A. D. 1900.
Practical settlement of the issue in the United States.
Attempted revival in the Presidential canvass.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MARCH-DECEMBER), and (MAY-NOVEMBER).

SILVER REPUBLICANS.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER); and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

SI-NGAN-FU, SINGAN FU, The Chinese Imperial Court at.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SIRDAR, Egyptian.

See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896; and 1897-1898.

SLAVERY: A. D. 1885.
Emancipation in Cuba.

See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.

SLAVERY: A. D. 1895.
New anti-slavery law in Egypt.

See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1895.

SLAVERY: A. D. 1896.
Abolition in Madagascar.

See (in this volume)
MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1894-1896.

SLAVERY: SLAVERY: A. D. 1897.
Abolished in Zanzibar.

See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (ZANZIBAR).

SLAVERY: A. D. 1897.
Compulsory labor in Rhodesia.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY):
A. D. 1897 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: A. D. 1897.
Subjugation of Fulah slave raiders in Nupé and Ilorin.

See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (NIGERIA).

SLAVERY: A. D. 1899.
Forced labor in Congo State.

See (in this volume)
CONGO FREE STATE: A. D. 1899.

SLESWICK:
Complaints of German treatment.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899.

SMOKELESS POWDERS, Invention of.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII. on.

See (in this volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1901.

SOCIALIST PARTIES.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897, and after;

BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895;

FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (APRIL-MAY), and 1900 (JANUARY);

GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895, and 1897 (JULY);

ITALY: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-MAY);

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894-1898;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

SOKOTO.

See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

SOLOMON ISLANDS, The:
Definite division between Great Britain and Germany.

See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.

SOMALIS, Rising of, in Jubaland.

See (in this volume)
BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE: A. D. 1900.

SOUDAN.

See (in this volume)
SUDAN.

"SOUND MONEY" DEMOCRATS.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

{456}

----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------

SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1881-1888.
Organization of the "Afrikander Bund."

The "Afrikander Bund" or National Party was formed in Cape
Colony in 1881, but held its first Congress, or convention, in
1888, at which meeting the following platform, or formal
statement of objects, was adopted:

"1. The Afrikander National party acknowledge the guidance of
Providence in the affairs both of lands and peoples.

2. They include, under the guidance of Providence, the
formation of a pure nationality and the preparation of our
people for the establishment of a 'United South Africa.'

3. To this they consider belong:

(a) The establishment of a firm union between all the
different European nationalities in South Africa, and

(b) The promotion of South Africa's independence.

4. They consider that the union mentioned in Article 3 (a)
depends upon the clear and plain understanding of each other's
general interest in politics, agriculture, stock-breeding,
trade, and industry, and the acknowledgment of everyone's
special rights in the matter of religion, education, and
language; so that all national jealousy between the different
elements of the people may be removed, and room be made for an
unmistakable South African national sentiment.

5. To the advancement of the independence mentioned in
Article 3 (b) belong:

(a) That the sentiment of national self-respect and of
patriotism toward South Africa should above all be
developed and exhibited in schools, and in families, and in
the public press.

(b) That a system of voting should be applied which not
only acknowledges the right of numbers, but also that of
ownership and the development of intelligence, and that is
opposed, as far as possible, to bribery and compulsion at
the poll.

(c) That our agriculture, stock-breeding, commerce, and
industries should be supported in every lawful manner, such
as by a conclusive law as regards masters and servants, and
also by the appointment of a prudent and advantageous
system of Protection.

(d) That the South African Colonies and States, either each
for itself or in conjunction with one another, shall
regulate their own native affairs, employing thereto the
forces of the land by means of a satisfactory burgher law;
and

(e) That outside interference with the domestic concerns of
South Africa shall be opposed.

6. While they acknowledge the existing Governments holding
rule in South Africa, and intend faithfully to fulfil their
obligations in regard to the same, they consider that the duty
rests upon those Governments to advance the interests of South
Africa in the spirit of the foregoing articles; and whilst, on
the one side, they watch against any unnecessary or frivolous
interference with the domestic or other private matters of the
burgher, against any direct meddling with the spiritual
development of the nation, and against laws which might hinder
the free influence of the Gospel upon the national life, on
the other hand they should accomplish all the positive duties
of a good Government, among which must be reckoned:

(a) In all their actions to take account of the Christian
character of the people.

(b) The maintenance of freedom of religion for everyone, so
long as the public order and honor are not injured thereby.

(c) The acknowledgment and expression of religious, social,
and bodily needs of the people, in the observance of the
present weekly day of rest.

(d) The application of an equal and judicious system of
taxation.

(e) The bringing into practice of an impartial and, as far
as possible, economical administration of justice.

(f) The watching over the public honor, and against the
adulteration of the necessaries of life, and the defiling
of ground, water, or air, as well as against the spreading
of infectious diseases.

7. In order to secure the influence of these principles, they
stand forward as an independent party, and accept the
cooperation of other parties only if the same can be obtained
with the uninjured maintenance of these principles.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1884-1894.
The restored independence of the Boers and their
dissatisfaction with its terms.
Frustration of their desire for extended territory.
The London Convention of 1884.

After the British-Boer War of 1880-81
(see, in volume 4, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881),
which had been caused by an arbitrary annexation of the
Transvaal State to the dominions of the British crown, the
sense of justice in Mr. Gladstone led him to restore to the
Transvaal Boers (by the Convention or Treaty of Pretoria,
1881) their right of internal self-government, with a
reservation of "the suzerainty of Her Majesty," supposably
relative to nothing but foreign affairs. The Boers were not
satisfied with that concession, and began at once to strive
for the complete independence they had previously possessed,
under a Convention agreed upon and signed at Sand River, 1852,
which guaranteed (quoting its precise terms) "in the fullest
manner, on the part of the British Government, to the emigrant
farmers (boers) beyond the Vaal River, the right to manage
their own affairs and to govern themselves, without any
interference on the part of Her Majesty the Queen's
Government." To regain that status of complete independence
became the first object of the Boers. They went far towards
success in this endeavor, as early as 1884, when the British
Colonial Secretary, Lord Derby, was induced to agree to a new
Convention with the South African Republic (as it was then
styled) which superseded the Convention of 1881. The terms of
the later instrument are given below. The second aim of the
Boers appears to have been the widening of their territory, by
advances, in the first instance, southward into Zululand and
westward into Bechuanaland. In the former movement they had
success; in the latter they were thwarted. English
missionaries complained of their treatment of the natives, and
stirred up the British government to take the Bechuana tribes
under its protection. Their eastern frontier they succeeded,
after long controversies with Great Britain, in stretching
beyond Swaziland, but they were not allowed to push it to the
sea. Northward, they would provably have gone far, had it not
been for the appearance, at this time, of Mr. Cecil Rhodes,
who came upon the scene of South African politics with
imperial ambitions, with great energies and capabilities, with
few apparent hesitations, and with a vast fortune acquired in the
Kimberley diamond mines. He organized the British South Africa
Company, under a royal charter, got some settlers into the
country north of the Limpopo and set up a government there, in
1890, just in time, it appears, to forestall the Boers

See, in volume 4,
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

{457}

Of the effect of the two conventions, of 1881 and 1884, on the
relations of the British government to the South African
Republic, the following is an English view, by a well-known
publicist: "In the Treaty of Pretoria, bearing date the 5th of
April, 1881, it is stated that Great Britain guarantees
'complete self-government, subject to the Suzerainty of Her
Majesty, to the inhabitants of the Transvaal.' … Article 15
declares that 'the Resident will report to the High
Commissioner, as representative of the Suzerain, as to the
working and observance of the provisions of this Convention.'
… On the 31st of March, 1881, Lord Kimberley, who was then
Secretary of State for the Colonies, used these words in the
House of Lords with reference to the terms of the Convention,
upon which the Treaty of Pretoria was afterwards based: 'I
believe the word Suzerainty expresses very correctly the
relation which we intend to exist between this country and the
Transvaal. Our intention is that the Transvaal shall have
independent power as regards its internal government; and we
shall only reserve certain powers to be exercised by the
Queen. … With respect to our control over the relations of the
Transvaal with foreign Powers, … it is quite clear there ought
to be, as regards foreign relations, only one Government in
South Africa; that there ought to be no communication with
foreign Powers upon any subject except through the
representatives of the Queen.'

"On the 25th of June, 1881, Mr. Gladstone, while defending in
the House of Commons an assertion he had made during the
Midlothian Campaign about the blood-guiltiness of the war with
the Transvaal, referred to our Suzerainty in the following
words; 'I apprehend that the term which has been adopted, the
Suzerainty of the Queen, is intended to signify that certain
portions of Sovereignty are reserved. … What are these
portions of Sovereignty? The portions of Sovereignty we desire
to reserve are, first, the relations between the Transvaal
community and foreign governments, the whole care of the
foreign relations of the Boers. The whole of these relations
will remain in the hands of the Queen.'

"From these quotations it is obvious that when we agreed to
restore the independence of the Transvaal, the British public
were led to believe, both by the then Premier and the then
Colonial Minister, that this restoration left the control of
all relations between the Transvaal and foreign Powers
absolutely and entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's
Government. … It is possible, or even probable, that at the
time the Treaty of Pretoria was concluded, Mr. Gladstone, or
at any rate several of his colleagues, imagined that our
Suzerainty would really be made effective. But, when once the
treaty had been signed and sealed, and the South African
Republic had been granted absolute internal independence, it
became evident that our Suzerainty could only be rendered
efficacious, as against the sullen resistance of the Boers, by
the exercise of force—that is, by the threat of war in the
event of Boer non-compliance with the demands of the Suzerain
Power. …

"For the first two years which succeeded our surrender the
Boers were too much occupied in the reorganisation of the
Republic to trouble themselves greatly about their relations
to the Suzerain Power. … Disputes were mainly connected with
the treatment of the native chiefs, residing either within, or
on the borders of, the territory of the Republic, who
asserted, with or without reason, that they were the objects
of Boer hostility on account of the support they had given to
the British authorities during the period of British rule.

"In May 1883 Mr. Gladstone stated in Parliament, in answer to
certain protests about the proceedings of the Boers, that the
British Government had decided to send a Commissioner to the
Transvaal to investigate the working of the Convention
concluded at Pretoria in 1881. This intention, however, was
not carried out owing to the opposition of the South African
Republic. In lieu of the despatch of a British Commissioner to
the Transvaal, it was suggested at Pretoria that a Boer
deputation should be sent to London. The suggestion, as usual,
was accepted; and thereupon the Africander Bond in the Cape
Colony forwarded a petition to the Queen, praying Her Majesty
to entertain favourably the proposals of the Boer delegates
for the modification of the Treaty of Pretoria. The
deputation, consisting of President Kruger and Messieurs Du
Toit and Smit, arrived in London in October, and submitted to
the late Lord Derby, who had succeeded Lord Kimberley as
Minister for the Colonies, a statement of the modifications
they were instructed to demand. The memorandum in question
distinctly declared that the alleged impracticability of the
Treaty of Pretoria related, amongst other matters, 'to the
extent of the Suzerain rights reserved to Her Majesty by
Articles 2 and 18 of the Treaty of Pretoria, and to the vague
and indefinite terms in which the powers reserved to Her
Majesty's Government by the Convention are indicated.'

"To this memorandum Lord Derby replied, on the 20th of
November, 1883, admitting that 'expediency of substituting a
new agreement for that of 1881 might be matter for discussion,
but asking for information, in what sense it is wished that in
such new agreement some connection with England should be
maintained, and, if it is the desire of the Transvaal people
that their State should hereafter stand in any special
relation to this country, what is the form of connection which
is proposed?' In reply to this request the Boer delegates
answered as follows in the somewhat evasive fashion: 'In the
new agreement any connection by which we are now bound to
England should not be broken; but that the relation of a
dependency "publici juris" in which our country now stands to
the British Crown be replaced by that of two contractive
Powers.'

"The above documents were submitted to the Governor of Cape
Colony, the then Sir Hercules Robinson. Characteristically
enough, Sir Hercules recommended the surrender of our
Suzerainty on the ground that 'The Transvaal burghers
obviously do not intend to observe any condition in it (the
Convention of 1881) distasteful to themselves, which Her
Majesty's Government are not prepared to insist on, if
necessary, by the employment of force. Her Majesty's
Government, I understand, do not feel justified in proceeding
to this extremity; and no provision, therefore, of the
Convention which is not agreeable to the Transvaal will be
carried out.'

{458}

"A few days later the delegates submitted a draft treaty, in
which the following clause stands first: 'It is agreed that
Her Britannic Majesty recognises and guarantees by this treaty
the full independence of the South African Republic, with the
right to manage its own affairs according to its own laws,
without any interference on the part of the British
Government; it being understood that this system of
non-interference is binding on both parties.' To the letter
enclosing this draft treaty Lord Derby replied that the
proposed treaty was 'neither in form nor in substance such as
Her Majesty's Government could adopt.' Meanwhile the
discussion between the British Government and the Boer
delegates seems to have turned mainly upon the extension of
the territories of the Transvaal and the relations between the
Republic and the native chiefs, subjects which had only an
indirect bearing on the question of Suzerainty. It was only on
the 25th of January, 1884, that the Colonial Office wrote to
the delegates stating that if a certain compromise with regard
to the frontier line were accepted, the British Government
would be prepared 'to proceed at once with the consideration
of the other proposals for the modification of the Treaty of
Pretoria.' The delegates replied on the next day virtually
accepting the proposed frontier compromise, and requested the
British Government to proceed at once with the substitution of
a new Convention. … The draft treaty was signed on the 27th of
February, 1884. …

"The Convention of London did not repeat the preamble of the
original Convention in which the words 'subject to the
Suzerainty of Her Majesty' are to be found. Nor is the word
Suzerainty mentioned in the Convention of 1884, which declares
that the articles contained therein, if endorsed by the
Volksraad, 'shall be substituted for those of the Convention
of 1881.' No formal withdrawal, however, of the Queen's
Suzerainty is to be found in the Convention of 1884. On the
contrary, it is distinctly affirmed in Article 4 of the
modified Convention that 'the South African Republic will
conclude no treaty or engagement with any State or nation,
other than the Orange Free State, until the same has been
approved by Her Majesty the Queen.'"

_Edward Dicey,
British Suzerainty in the Transvaal
(Nineteenth Century, October, 1897)._

In its preamble, the Convention of 1884 recites that—"Whereas
the Government of the Transvaal State, through its Delegates,
consisting of [Kruger, Du Toit and Smit], have represented
that the Convention signed at Pretoria on the 3rd day of
August, 1881, and ratified by the Volksraad of the said State
on the 25th of October, 1881, contains certain provisions
which are inconvenient, and imposes burdens and obligations
from which the said State is desirous to be relieved, and that
the south-western boundaries fixed by the said Convention
should be amended with a view to promote the peace and good
order of the said State, … now, therefore, Her Majesty has
been pleased to direct," &c.—substituting the articles of a
new Convention for those signed and ratified in 1881.

Article I. of the new Convention describes the lines of
boundary as amended. Article II. binds the two governments,
respectively, to guard said boundaries against all
trespassing. Article III. provides for the reception and
protection, at Pretoria, of a resident British officer, "to
discharge functions analogous to those of a consular officer."

Article IV. reads as follows: "The South African Republic will
conclude no Treaty or engagement with any State or nation
other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to
the eastward or westward of the Republic, until the same has been
approved by Her Majesty the Queen. Such approval shall be
considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government
shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of such
Treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its
completion), have notified that the conclusion of such Treaty
is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain, or of any
of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa."

Articles V. and VI. relate to public debts. Article VII.
guarantees the non-molestation of persons in the South African
Republic who "remained loyal to Her Majesty during the late
hostilities." Article VIII. is a declaration against slavery
in the Republic. Article IX. is in language as follows: "There
will continue to be complete freedom of religion and
protection from molestation for all denominations, provided
the same be not inconsistent with morality and good order; and
no disability shall attach to any person in regard to rights
of property by reason of the religious opinions which he
holds." Article X. relates to graves of British soldiers; XI.
to former grants of land which the present arrangement of
boundary places outside of the Republic; XII. to the
independence of the Swazis; XIII. to non-discrimination in
import duties on both sides.