Chapter LXXXVII: Section 29 (7)

The complaints of the Uitlanders, effectually silenced for the
time being at Johannesburg by the vigorous action of the
Boers, were now taken up by the British Secretary of State for
the Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed in strenuous
despatches to the High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir
Hercules Robinson. On the 4th of January, 1896, four days
after the surrender of Jameson and four days before the
insurgent Uitlanders at Johannesburg had laid down their arms,
a long despatch was cabled by Mr. Chamberlain to the High
Commissioner, instructing him to make "friendly
representations" to President Kruger on the subject of those
complaints. "I am aware," wrote the Colonial Secretary, "that
victory of Transvaal Government over Administrator of
Mashonaland may possibly find them not willing to make any
concessions. If this is the attitude they adopt, they will, in
my opinion, make a great mistake; for danger from which they
have just escaped was real, and one which, if the causes which
led up to it are not removed, may recur, although in a
different form. I have done everything in my power to undo and
to minimise the evil caused by late unwarrantable raid by
British subjects into the territory of the South African
Republic, and it is not likely that such action will be ever
repeated; but the state of things of which complaint has been
made cannot continue forever. If those who are now a majority
of inhabitants of the Transvaal, but are excluded from all
participation in its government, were, of their own
initiative, and without any interference from without, to
attempt to reverse that state of things, they would, without
doubt, attract much sympathy from all civilised communities
who themselves live under a free Government, and I cannot
regard the present state of things in the South African
Republic as free from danger to the stability of its
institutions.
{467}
The Government of the South African Republic cannot be
indifferent to these considerations, and President of South
African Republic himself has on more than one occasion,
expressed his willingness to inquire into and to deal with
just reasons for discontent; and the Volksraad have now the
opportunity to show magnanimity in the hour of their success
and to settle all differences by moderate concessions. They
must fully admit the entire loyalty of yourself and of Her
Majesty's Government to the terms of London Convention, as
shown by their recent intervention, and they must recognise
that their authority in crisis through which they have passed
could not have been so promptly and effectively asserted
without that intervention. If they will recognise this by
making concessions in accordance with our friendly advice, no
one will be able to suggest that they are acting under
pressure, and their voluntary moderation will produce best
effect among all who are interested in well-being of the
Transvaal and in future of South Africa."

On the 13th of January the Colonial Secretary pursued the
subject in another despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson, as
follows: "Now that Her Majesty's Government have fulfilled
their obligations to the South African Republic, and have
engaged to bring the leaders in the recent invasion to trial,
they are anxious that the negotiations which are being
conducted by you should result in a permanent settlement by
which the possibility of further internal troubles will be
prevented. The majority of the population is composed of
Uitlanders, and their complete exclusion from any share in the
government of the country is an admitted grievance which is
publicly recognised as such by the friends of the Republic as
well as by the opinion of civilised Europe. There will always
be a danger of internal disturbance so long as this grievance
exists, and I desire that you will earnestly impress on
President Kruger the wisdom of making concessions in the
interests alike of the South African Republic and of South
Africa as a whole. There is a possibility that the President
might be induced to rely on the support of some foreign Power
in resisting the grant of reforms or in making demands upon
Her Majesty's Government; and in view of this I think it well
to inform you that Great Britain will resist at all costs the
interference of any foreign Power in the affairs of the South
African Republic. The suggestion that such interference was
contemplated by Germany was met in this country by an
unprecedented and unanimous outburst of public feeling. In
order to be prepared for all eventualities, it has been
thought desirable by Her Majesty's Government to commission a
Flying Squadron of powerful men-of-war, with twelve
torpedo-ships; and many other vessels are held in reserve. Her
Majesty's Government have no reason, at the present moment, to
anticipate any conflict of interest with foreign Powers; but I
think it right for you to know that Great Britain will not
tolerate any change in her relations with the Republic, and
that, while loyally respecting its internal independence,
subject to the Conventions, she will maintain her position as
the Paramount Power in South Africa, and especially the
provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884. It is my
sincere hope that President Kruger, who has hitherto shown so
much wisdom in dealing with the situation, will now take the
opportunity afforded to him of making of his own free will
such reasonable concessions to the Uitlanders as will remove
the last excuse for disloyalty, and will establish the free
institutions of the Republic on a firm and lasting basis."

To this Sir Hercules replied with a remonstrance, saying:
"Your telegram 13 January No.1 only reached me last night
after I had left Pretoria. I could, if you consider it
desirable, communicate purport to President of South African
Republic by letter, but I myself think such action would be
inopportune. … Nearly all leading Johannesburg men are now in
gaol, charged with treason against the State, and it is
rumoured that Government has written evidence of a
long-standing and wide-spread conspiracy to seize Government
of country on the plea of denial of political privileges, and
to incorporate the country with that of British South Africa
Company. The truth of these reports will be tested in the
trials to take place shortly in the High Court, and meanwhile
to urge claim for extended political privileges for the very
men so charged would be ineffectual and impolitic. President
of South African Republic has already promised municipal
government to Johannesburg, and has stated in a Proclamation
that all grievances advanced in a constitutional manner will
be carefully considered and brought before the Volksraad
without loss of time; but until result of trials is known
nothing, of course, will now be done." Mr. Chamberlain saw
force in the High Commissioner's objections, and assented to a
momentary suspension of pressure on the Transvaal President,
but not for long. "I recognise," he telegraphed on the 15th,
"that the actual moment is not opportune for a settlement of
the Uitlanders' grievances, and that the position of the
President of the South African Republic may be an embarrassing
one, but I do not consider that the arrest of a few score
individuals out of a population of 70,000 or more, or the
supposed existence of a plot among that small minority, is a
reason for denying to the overwhelming majority of innocent
persons reforms which are just in themselves and expedient in
the interests of the Republic. Whatever may be said about the
conduct of a few individuals, nothing can be plainer than that
the sober and industrious majority refused to countenance any
resort to violence, and proved their readiness to obey the law
and your authority. I hope, therefore, to hear at an early
date that you propose to resume the discussion with President
of South African Republic on lines laid down in my previous
telegrams. I do not see that the matter need wait until the
conclusion of the trial of the supposed plotters."

On the 28th of January the High Commissioner, under
instructions from London, addressed to President Kruger the
following invitation: "I am directed by Her Majesty's
Government to tender to your Honour a cordial invitation to
visit England, with a view to discussing with them all those
questions which relate to the security of the South African
Republic and the general welfare of South Africa. I am to add
that, although Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to
modify Article 4 of the London Convention [see above; A. D.
1884-1894], other matters are open to friendly discussion.
{468}
Her Majesty's Government hope that your Honour will come as
the guest of the British Government." While this invitation
was being considered, and before a reply to it had been made,
the British Colonial Secretary reopened his own discussion of
the questions at issue, February 4, in a despatch of great
length, reviewing the whole history of the relations of the
Uitlanders to the government of the South African Republic,
and of the recent occurrences which had been consequent upon
their discontent. It praised "the spirit of wisdom and
moderation" shown by President Kruger, who "kept within bounds
the natural exasperation of his burghers," and it gave
especial attention to a proclamation which President Kruger
had addressed to the inhabitants of Johannesburg, on the 10th
of January, in which he had said: "It is my intention to
submit a draft Law at the first ordinary session of the
Volksraad, whereby a Municipality with a Mayor at its head
will be appointed for Johannesburg, to whom the whole
municipal government of this town will be entrusted."

On this the Secretary made the following suggestions: "Basing
myself upon the expressed desire of President Kruger to grant
municipal government to Johannesburg, I suggest, for his
consideration, as one way of meeting the difficulty, that the
whole of the Rand district, from end to end, should be erected
into something more than a municipality as that word is
ordinarily understood; that, in fact, it should have a
modified local autonomy, with powers of legislation on purely
local questions, and subject to the veto of the President and
Executive Council; and that this power of legislation should
include the power of assessing and levying its own taxation,
subject to the payment to the Republican Government of an
annual tribute of an amount to be fixed at once and revised at
intervals, so as to meet the case of a diminution or increase
in the mining industry. As regards judicial matters in such a
scheme, the Rand, like the Eastern Provinces and the Kimberley
District of the Cape Colony, might have a superior court of
its own. It would, of course, be a feature of this scheme that
the autonomous body should have the control of its civil
police, its public education, its mine management, and all
other matters affecting its internal economy and well-being.
The central Government would be entitled to maintain all
reasonable safeguards against the fomenting of a revolutionary
movement, or the storage of arms for treasonable purposes
within the district. Those living in, and there enjoying a
share in the government of, the autonomous district, would
not, in my view, be entitled to a voice in the general
Legislature or the Central Executive, or the presidential
election. The burghers would thus be relieved of what is
evidently a haunting fear to many of them—although I believe
an unfounded one—that the first use which the enfranchised
newcomers would make of their privileges would be to upset the
republican form of government. Relieved of this apprehension,
I should suppose that there would not be many of them who
would refuse to deal with the grievances of the comparatively
few Uitlanders outside the Rand on those liberal principles
which characterized the earlier legislation of the Republic.
The President may rest assured that in making the above
suggestions I am only actuated by friendly feeling towards
himself and the South African Republic. They are not offered
in derogation of his authority, but as the sincere and
friendly contribution of Her Majesty's Government towards the
settlement of a question which continues to threaten the
tranquillity of the Republic and the welfare and progress of
the whole of South Africa. A proper settlement of the
questions at issue involves so many matters of detail which
could be more easily and satisfactorily settled by personal
conference, that I should be glad to have the opportunity of
discussing the subject with the President, if it suited his
convenience, and were agreeable to him, to come to this
country for the purpose. Should this be impracticable, I rely
upon you to make my views known to him and to carry on the
negotiations."

This despatch, as soon as it had been forwarded from the
Colonial Office, was published in the "London Gazette," so
that a telegraphed summary of its contents reached President
Kruger before it came to him officially,—which naturally added
something to the irritations existing at Pretoria. However,
the President, on the 8th of February, by telegram to the High
Commissioner, and more fully on the 25th by letter, responded
to the invitation to visit England. In his telegram he said:
"In order to give me the liberty to let the Honourable
Volksraad judge whether permission and power to act will be
given me to go out of the country, an understanding must, of
course, first be come to as to what points will he discussed
or not, so that I may lay those points before the Volksraad
for deliberation and resolution." In his letter he wrote:

"At the commencement, I wish to observe that the object of
this letter is to pave the way for a friendly discussion of
the matters herein mentioned, in order to arrive at a
satisfactory solution, and further that, although as yet I
desire no positive and direct assent to the desires expressed
herein, I would, nevertheless, to prevent a misunderstanding,
desire to have an assurance that they will be taken into the
most mature consideration with the earnest endeavour and the
sincere desire to comply with my wishes. The desire to receive
this assurance will be respected by your Excellency and Her
Majesty's Government as reasonable, when I say that,
considering especially my advanced age and the unavoidable
delay, owing to my absence, in the transaction of matters
affecting the highest State interests, I would, with
difficulty, be able to make the sacrifice in going only to
discuss matters without arriving at the desired result, and it
is evident that if the assurance referred to by me cannot be
given by Her Majesty's Government, in all probability the
Honourable Volksraad would not grant its consent and
commission. … Although, as already said, the Government could
tolerate no interference in its internal relations and the
official discussion of affairs with the object of requiring
changes therein will have to be avoided, on the other hand I
wish it to be understood that private hints given by statesmen
of experience in the true interest of the country and its
independence will always be warmly appreciated by me, from
whatever side they may come.

{469}

"Going over to a summing up of the points which, in my
opinion, should be brought under discussion, I wish to mention
in the first place:—

1. The superseding of the Convention of London with the eye,
amongst others, on the violation of the territory of the South
African Republic: because in several respects it has already
virtually ceased to exist; because in other respects it has no
more cause for existence; because it is injurious to the
dignity of an independent Republic; because the very name and
the continual arguments on the question of suzerainty, which
since the conclusion of this Convention no longer exists, are
used as a pretext, especially by a libellous press, for
wilfully inciting both white and coloured people against the
lawful authority of the Republic; for intentionally bringing
about misunderstanding and false relations between England and
the Republic, whereby in this manner the interests of both
countries and of their citizens and subjects are prejudiced
and the peaceful development of the Republic is opposed. In
the discussion of the withdrawal of the Convention as a whole,
Article IV. should naturally not be kept back. I have reason
to believe that the British Government has come to the
decision to make no alteration in this on account of false
representations made to it and lying reports spread by the
press and otherwise with a certain object, to the effect that
the Government of the Republic has called in, or sought, the
protection of other Powers. While I thankfully acknowledge and
will ever acknowledge the sympathy of other Powers or their
subjects, and the conduct of the last named has, in the light
of the trials recently passed through, on the whole offered a
favourable contrast to that of British subjects, there is
nevertheless nothing further from my thoughts than to strive
for the protection of a foreign power, which I will never even
seek. Neither I nor the people of the Republic will tolerate an
interference with the internal relations from any power
whatever, and I am prepared, if the course proposed by me be
adopted, to give the necessary assurances for this, in order
that Her British Majesty's Government need have no fear that
Her interests in South Africa should be injured.

2. Further should be discussed the superseding of the
Convention by a treaty of peace, commerce and friendship, by
which the existing privileges of England in the dominion of
commerce and intercourse and the interests of British subjects
in the Republic will be satisfactorily guaranteed on the
footing of the most-favoured nation, and herein I would be
prepared to go to the utmost of what can reasonably be asked.

3. Then the necessary guarantees will have to be given against
a repetition of the violation of territory out of the
territory of the Chartered Company or the Cape Colony, and of
disturbing military operations and unlawful military or police
or even private movements on the borders of the Republic.

4. Further should be discussed the compensation for direct and
indirect injury to be given or caused to be given by England
for and by reason of the incursion that recently took place.
The reasons for this are evident and need no argument. The
amount to be demanded it is impossible as yet to determine,
but, if required, it can still be given before my departure to
England.

5. I would, although in the following respects I would not
insist beforehand on an assurance such as that intended with
regard to the above-mentioned points, nevertheless wish to
request the earnest consideration of a final settlement of the
Swaziland question, in this sense, that that country shall
henceforth become a part of the Republic. …

6. Further, I would very much like to have discussed the
revocation of the charter of the Chartered Company, which, if
this does not take place, will continue to be a threatening
danger to the quiet and peace of the Republic and thereby also
to the whole South Africa. I am of opinion that all the above
desires are fair and just. … I will be pleased to receive the
views of Her Majesty's Government on the points herein brought
forward, in order that I may be enabled to bring the matter
for decision before the Honourable Volksraad."

Mr. Chamberlain's reply to this communication was, in part, as
follows: "Her Majesty's Government regret that President has
given no definite reply to invitation to visit England which
was sent to him on 28th January. This invitation was the
result of private information conveyed to Her Majesty's
Government that the President was desirous of arranging with
them a settlement of all differences, and of placing on a
permanent and friendly basis the relations between the United
Kingdom and the South African Republic. Before forwarding the
invitation, Her Majesty's Government knew that his Honour was
in full possession of their opinion, that no arrangement can
be satisfactory or complete which does not include a fair
settlement of those grievances of the Uitlander population
which have been recognized by the general public opinion of
South Africa, and which have been the cause of discontent and
agitation in the past, and are likely—unless remedied—to lead
to further disturbances in future, Her Majesty's Government
also took care to satisfy themselves that the President had
been made aware that they were not prepared to modify in any
way the provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884,
and this was again made clear in the formal invitation to
visit England. Under these circumstances, it was with great
surprise that Her Majesty's Government learnt from the
Despatch of the President of 25th February that his Honour
objected to discuss the question of the reforms asked for by
the Uitlanders, and that he desired to propose withdrawal of
Article IV. of the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government
regret that they were not informed of his Honour's views on
the subject at an earlier date, as they would not have felt
justified in inviting the President to encounter the fatigue
of a journey to this country if they had not been led to
believe that he was in agreement with them as to the general
object of such a visit.

"In their view, Her Majesty's Government were able to offer a
complete guarantee in the future to the South African Republic
against any attack upon its independence, either from within
any part of Her Majesty's dominions or from the territory of a
foreign Power. In return, they assumed that the President
would make known to them the measures which he proposed to
take to remedy the acknowledged grievances of the Uitlanders,
and to consider any suggestions which Her Majesty's Government
might wish to offer as to the adequacy of these measures for
the removal of all cause of internal disturbances. … Such a
discussion as they contemplate would not involve any
acknowledgment on the part of the President of a right of
interference in the internal concerns of the Republic, but
would only at the most amount to a recognition of the friendly
interest of Her Majesty's Government in its security, and in
the general welfare of South Africa.
{470}
The President would be, of course, at liberty to accept or to
reject any advice that might be tendered to him by Her
Majesty's Government, but in the latter case the
responsibility for the result would naturally rest wholly with
him. Her Majesty's Government have already expressed a
willingness to give full consideration to any representations
which his Honour may wish to make on the other points named in
his letter, although some of them are matters wholly in
jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. But unless the
President is satisfied with the explanations I have now given,
Her Majesty's Government are reluctantly obliged to come to
the conclusion that no good purpose can be served by the
proposed visit."

In return to this despatch, President Kruger, on 17th of
March, expressed his "deep disappointment" at its contents, by
reason of which, he said, "it is not possible for me to
proceed to convene a special session of the Volksraad at once"
for the purpose of action upon the invitation of the British
Government. Thereupon (April 27), the Colonial Secretary
cabled to the High Commissioner in South Africa: "Her
Majesty's Government have no alternative but to withdraw the
invitation, which it appears from the President's message was
given under a misapprehension of the facts." Thus the two
parties were at a deadlock.

_Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1896,
C. 7933, pages 19-91; and C. 8063, pages 11-17._

SOUTH AFRICA: Rhodesia: A. D. 1896 (March-September).
Matabele revolt.

Taking advantage of the confusion in affairs which followed
the Jameson raid, and its removal of part of the police force
from the country, the Matabele rose in revolt. The main
provocation of the rising appears to have been from severe
measures that were adopted for stamping out rinderpest in the
country. Many whites were killed in the regions of scattered
settlement, and Buluwayo and Gwelo, where considerable numbers
had taken refuge, were in much danger for a time. But prompt
and vigorous measures were taken by the colonial and imperial
authorities, as well as by the officers of the South Africa
Company. Troops were sent from Cape Colony, Natal, and
England, and Major-General Sir Frederick Carrington was
ordered from Gibraltar to take command. Cecil Rhodes hastened
to Salisbury on the first news of the outbreak and organized a
force of volunteers for the relief of the beleaguered towns. The
Transvaal government offered help. By June, when General
Carrington arrived, and Lord Grey had succeeded Dr. Jameson as
Administrator, the insurgent natives had been put on the
defensive and had nearly ceased their attacks. They were
driven into the Matoppo hills, where their position was
formidably strong. At length, in August, Mr. Rhodes opened
negotiations with some of the chiefs, and went, with three
companions, unarmed, into their stronghold. He there made an
agreement with them, which the British military authorities
and many of the Matabele warriors refused to be bound by. But
the revolt had been practically broken and soon came to an
end.

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (June).
Resignation of Mr. Rhodes.

On the 26th of June the resignations of Cecil J. Rhodes and
Mr. Beit from the Board of Directors of the British South
Africa Company, and of Mr. Rutherford Harris as its Secretary,
were accepted by the Board.

SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1896 (July).
Investigation of the Jameson Raid.
Responsibility of Cecil J. Rhodes.

On the 17th of July a Select Committee of the Cape Colony
House of Assembly, appointed in the previous May "to inquire
into the circumstances, as affecting this colony, in connexion
with the preparations for and carrying out of the recent armed
inroad into the territory of the South African Republic," made
its report, rehearsing at length the facts ascertained, with
evidence in full, and submitting a number of "conclusions,"
among them the following: "Your Committee are of opinion that
no member of the then Colonial Government with the exception
of the then Prime Minister [Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes], had any
knowledge whatever or suspicion of the intention to send an
armed force across the border of the South African Republic. …
Your Committee is convinced that the stores and workshops of
the De Beers Consolidated Mines were for some time previous to
the inroad used for the storage and for the unlawful
exportation of arms destined for the South African Republic,
in connexion with this inroad, and also that 11 men were sent
from De Beers to Johannesburg, who were afterwards allowed to
resume their positions. The evidence is clear, and leaves no
room for doubt on this point. The local directors give an
emphatic denial to any guilty knowledge on their part, and
your Committee must acquit them of anything beyond negligence,
which, looking to the magnitude of the transactions and the
length of time over which they extended, must have been very
marked. It is not conceivable that such proceedings could have
been permitted without the knowledge and approval of the
Chairman and Life Governor, Mr. C. J. Rhodes. With regard to
the Chartered Company, your Committee find that the principal
officials in Cape Town either knew, or were in a position to
have known, the existence of this plot. Two at least of the
directors, Mr. Beit and the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes,
were, together with the Administrator, Dr. Jameson, and Dr.
Harris, the South African Secretary of the Company, active as
promoters and moving spirits throughout, and they were from
time to time kept informed of the preparations. … The whole
movement was largely financed and engineered from outside, and
in both cases certain directors and officials of the Chartered
Company of British South Africa were active throughout. As
regards the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes, your Committee can
come to no other conclusion than that he was thoroughly
acquainted with the preparations that led to the inroad. That
in his capacity as controller of the three great joint-stock
companies, the British South Africa Company, the De Beers
Consolidated Mines, and the Gold Fields of South Africa, he
directed and controlled the combination which rendered such a
proceeding as the Jameson raid possible. … It would appear
that Mr. Rhodes did not direct or approve of Dr. Jameson's
entering the territory of the South African Republic at the
precise time when he did do so, but your Committee cannot find
that that fact relieves Mr. Rhodes from responsibility for the
unfortunate occurrences which took place. Even if Dr. Jameson
be primarily responsible for the last fatal step, Mr. Rhodes
cannot escape the responsibility of a movement which had been
arranged, with his concurrence, to take place at the precise
time it did, if circumstances had been favourable at
Johannesburg."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1897,
C. 8380, pages 7-9._

{471}

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (July).
Parliamentary movement to investigate its administration.

In the British House of Commons, on the 30th of July, Mr.
Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a
motion for the appointment of a select committee of fifteen to
conduct an inquiry into the administration of the British
South Africa Company, and the motion was adopted.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1896-1897 (May-April).
Continued controversies between the British Colonial
Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, and the Government of the
South African Republic.
Complaints and counter complaints.
Aliens Immigration Law, etc.

For a time after the abandonment of the proposed visit of
President Kruger to England, the older questions at issue
between Great Britain and the Transvaal fell into the
background; but new ones were constantly rising. Each party
watched the other with suspicious and critical eyes, sharply
questioning things that would hardly have been noticed in
ordinary times. The Boer authorities, on their side, were
naturally disturbed and made inquisitive by every movement of
troops or arms in the surrounding British territory, both of
which movements were being somewhat increased by the revolt of
the Matabeles. They were impatient, too, for some action on
the part of the British government against the chief authors
of the recent invasion,—the officials of the British South
Africa Company,—and against the Company itself. On the 11th of
May, 1896, the State Secretary of the Transvaal government
telegraphed to the British High Commissioner as follows: "The
newspapers of the last few days state that Her Majesty's
Government still continue to take the part of the Directors of
British South Africa Company, especially Mr. Rhodes. This
Government will not believe the accuracy of these reports, but
it is of opinion that the Chartered Company as administering
the Government up to now is a source of danger to whole of
South Africa. The inroad into this Republic was made by
officers, troops, and arms of that Chartered Company, and even
the explicit prohibition of Her Majesty's Government was
unable to restrain them, notwithstanding the Chartered Company
had taken upon itself the international obligations of Great
Britain. The behaviour of the persons who knew of the scheme
of the inroad beforehand and supported it is, as we see,
defended by saying that they acted thus in the interests of
and for the extension of Imperialism in South Africa. This
Government does not believe that the end justifies the means,
and is convinced that Her Majesty's Government does not wish
to be served by misdeed."

When this had been communicated to the British Colonial
Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, he replied (May 13) that the
President of the South African Republic "has been misinformed
if he supposes that Her Majesty's Government have taken the
part of any of British South Africa Company Directors,
including Mr. Rhodes, with regard to any connexion which they
may be hereafter proved to have had with the recent raid. … On
the contrary, while appreciating Mr. Rhodes's services in the
past, Her Majesty's Government have condemned the raid, and
the conduct of all the parties implicated by the telegrams
recently published. Her Majesty's Government have promised a
full Parliamentary inquiry, as soon as legal proceedings
against Dr. Jameson and his officers have been concluded, to
examine the Charter granted to British South Africa Company
and the operation of its provisions, and to consider whether
any improvements in it are desirable. Such an inquiry will go
into the whole subject, not only of recent events, but of the
whole administration. Her Majesty's Government cannot be
expected to announce any decision as to the future of the
Company until the Parliamentary Committee has made its
recommendations."

On the 15th President Kruger replied: "This Government is very
pleased at receiving the assurance that a searching inquiry is
being instituted against British South Africa Company and its
Directors, and will follow its course with interest." But the
following month found the authorities at Pretoria still
unsatisfied as to the intention of the British government to
bring Mr. Rhodes and the South Africa Company to account for
what they had done. On the 19th of June, the then Acting High
Commissioner (Sir Hercules Robinson having gone to England on
leave) transmitted to Mr. Chamberlain two telegrams just
received by him from the government of the South African
Republic. The first was as follows: "Acting under
instructions, I have the honour to acquaint your Excellency,
for the information of Her Majesty's Government, that, with a
view to the welfare and peace of South Africa, this Government
is convinced that the proofs in the possession and at the
disposal of Her Majesty's Government now completely justify
and compel the bringing to trial of Messrs. Cecil Rhodes,
Alfred Beit, and Doctor Rutherford Harris, as has already been
done with Doctor Jameson and his accomplices. In the interests
of all South Africa, this Government feels itself obliged to
press the taking of this step upon Her Majesty's Government. I
have also the honour to request your Excellency to communicate
this despatch by cable to Her Majesty's Government in London."

The second was in this language: "This Government regards with
great regret the delay in the matter of the inquiry with
respect to the complicity and responsibility of British South
Africa Company in connexion with the raid of Doctor Jameson
and his band within the territory of this Republic. This
Government considers it its right and duty to press for the
speedy holding of the inquiry, not merely because it is the
injured party but also because of its interest and share in
the well-being of South Africa, whose interests, as repeatedly
intimated, are also dear to Her Majesty the Queen. This
Government is also convinced that it is urgently necessary
that the entire control and administration, as well civil as
military, be taken out of hands of British South Africa
Company and transferred to Her Majesty's Government, and I am
instructed to press this point on behalf of this Government. I
have further the honour to request your Excellency to cable
this despatch to Her Majesty's Government in London."

{472}

To these communications Mr. Chamberlain made a somewhat
haughty response. "Inform the Government of the South African
Republic," he cabled on the 25th of June, "that Her Majesty's
Government have received their telegrams of the 19th June,
which were published in London almost simultaneously with
their receipt by me. Her Majesty's Government do not require
to be reminded of their duty in regard to the recent invasion
of the South African Republic, and they cannot admit the claim
of the Government of the Republic to dictate the time and
manner in which they shall fulfil their obligations. I am
unable to understand the reasons which have suddenly
influenced the Government of the South African Republic to
make representations which are inconsistent with their
previous statements. On 18th April and on 15th May the
Government of the Republic appeared to be satisfied with the
assurances given them by Her Majesty's Government, from which
there has never been any intention of departing. It would not
be in accordance with English ideas of justice to condemn the
British South Africa Company and deal with its powers as
proposed in the telegrams before an enquiry had been made, and
before the Company had been heard in its own defence. With
regard to the demand of the Government of the South African
Republic that the three gentlemen specifically named shall now
be placed on their trial, you will remind them that Her
Majesty's Government can only act in this matter upon the
advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in accordance
with the principles of English law."

But Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, on his side, was
equally—perhaps more than equally—watchful and critical of the
doings and omissions of the government of the South African
Republic. He kept an eye upon them that was especially alert
for the detection of infractions of the London Convention of
1884 (see above: A. D. 1884-1894), with its provisions very
strictly construed. He found treaties negotiated with foreign
powers in contravention of Article IV. of that Convention, and
laws passed which he deemed an infringement of its Article
XIV. He arraigned the government of the Republic upon each as
it came to his knowledge, and then, on the 6th of March, 1897,
went back over the record of his complaints and summed them
up, as follows: "It will be convenient if I recapitulate
briefly the occasions for such complaint, beginning with the
cases relating to Article IV. of the Convention. …

"1.—Netherlands Treaty.
On the 9th November 1895, an Extradition Treaty between the
South African Republic and the Netherlands was signed at the
Hague, and the ratifications were exchanged on the 19th June
last, without the Treaty being submitted for the approval of
Her Majesty. The case was therefore one of a clear infraction
of the Convention, inasmuch as the Treaty had not been
submitted to Her Majesty's Government on its completion, and
had been concluded by the exchange of ratifications without
obtaining the previous approval of the Queen. The Government
of the South African Republic, on their attention being called
to the infraction, did not deny that there had been a
departure from the general practice, but urged that they had
made no publication of the Treaty in anticipation of the
approval of Her Majesty. The Treaty had, however, been
published in the 'Netherlands Gazette' of the 3rd July, and I
observed that when the Treaty was published in the 'Staats
Courant' of the South African Republic after Her Majesty's
approval had been given, the official notice merely stated
that the Treaty was signed and ratified on certain dates, no
reference being made to that approval.

"2.-The Accession of the South African Republic to the
Geneva Convention.
After Dr. Jameson's raid, owing to a report made by the St.
John's Ambulance Association, Her Majesty's Government
determined to invite the South African Republic to accede to
the Geneva Convention, and the necessary instructions were
sent to Sir J. de Wet, who, however, omitted to carry them
out. The South African Republic, on the 30th September,
formally communicated to the Swiss Government, through their
Representative at the Hague, their act of accession to the
Geneva Convention. Her Majesty's Government, in the
circumstances, did not hesitate to convey the Queen's
approval, but the action of the Government of the Republic
none the less constituted a breach of the London Convention.

"3.—Portuguese Treaty.
An Extradition Treaty between the South African Republic and
Portugal was signed on the 3rd November 1893, but, contrary to
the usual practice, has not yet been submitted for the Queen's
approval, although two years have elapsed since Lord Ripon, in
his Despatch of the 25th February 1895, requested your
predecessor to call the attention of the President to the
omission to communicate this Convention to Her Majesty's
Government under the provisions of Article IV. of the London
Convention. … I now pass to the consideration of some of the
recent legislation of the Volksraad in its relation to Article
XIV. It will be found that it involves in more than one case
actual or possible breaches of the Convention. Article XIV.
runs as follows:—'All persons, other than natives, conforming
themselves to the laws of the South African Republic
(a) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter,
travel, or reside in any part of the South African
Republic;
(b) they will be entitled to hire or possess houses,
manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises;
(c) they may carry on their commerce either in person or by
any agents whom they may think fit to employ;
(d) they will not be subject, in respect of their persons
or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry,
to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those
which are or may be imposed upon citizens of the said
Republic.'

"4.—The Aliens Immigration Law.
This law imposes upon aliens conditions of a new and
burthensome character in excess of the simple requirement that
they must conform themselves to the laws of the Republic. … 2.
The Aliens Expulsion Law. This law empowers the President,
with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, after
consulting the State Attorney, to expel, without an appeal to
the Court, any foreigner who, by word or writing, excites to
disobedience or transgression of the law, or takes any steps
dangerous to public peace and order. … Her Majesty's
Government … do not admit that the Government of the Republic
have a right to expel foreigners who are not shown to have
failed to conform to the laws of the Republic, and they
reserve the right to object to proceedings under the Act which
may amount to a breach of the Convention.
{473}
3. The Press Law. This law empowers the State President, on
the advice and with the consent of the Executive, to prohibit
entirely or for a time the circulation of printed or published
matter the contents of which are, in his judgment, contrary to
good morals or a danger to the peace and order in the
Republic. The suppression of the 'Critic' newspaper, the
property of a British subject, under this law, is a matter
which may raise a serious question as to whether the action of
the Government of the Republic has been consistent with the
Convention, but as Her Majesty's Government have not yet
received the explanation of the Government of the Republic in
that case, it is only necessary for me to make a passing
allusion to it in this Despatch.

"In several of the cases above cited, the strict letter of the
Convention could apparently have been observed without any
difficulty, while in others the objects which the Government
of the South African Republic had in view could have been
attained without any infringement of the Convention by a
previous understanding with Her Majesty's Government. Her
Majesty's Government therefore cannot conceal from themselves
that the Government of the South African Republic have in
these cases failed to give effect in practice to the
intention, so frequently expressed in public and official
utterances, of upholding the Convention on the part of the
Republic, and of maintaining that good understanding with Her
Majesty's Government which is so necessary in the interests of
South Africa."

Of the laws complained of by Mr. Chamberlain, that relating to
immigrant aliens had raised the most protest, because of its
requirement that all such aliens who were permitted to enter
and remain in the country must carry "travelling and
residential passes," to be shown on demand. The Transvaal
Government had met Mr. Chamberlain's first remonstrance on
this subject, in January, by saying: "It is an evident fact
that, especially during the last time, the immigration of
aliens of the lowest class and without any means of
subsistence has been increasing in a disquieting manner. These
persons are dangerous to the peace of the inhabitants and of
the State itself, and, in the opinion of this Government, no
country whatever can be obliged to admit such undesirable
persons. The regulation of unrestricted entry, as it at
present takes place, is thus, from the point of view of police
requirement, not only necessary but also entirely justified
and constitutes no infringement of Article 14 of the
Convention. This Government does not desire as yet to express
any opinion on the suggestion that under the circumstances
mentioned it should have approached Her Britannic Majesty's
Government with a view to arriving at an understanding. In
case, however, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty has
another practical measure to propose whereby its
above-mentioned subjects, whose presence here is not desired
for the reasons stated, can be prevented from seeking an
outlet on the soil of the South African Republic, and that
measure can be found to be applicable to the subjects of other
Powers as well (since the law makes no distinction in that
respect) it will be ready, with gratitude, to give its full
consideration to such measure."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1897, C. 8423._

SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony and Natal: A. D. 1897.
Conference of colonial premiers with
the British Colonial] Secretary.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1897 (January).
Compulsory labor in Rhodesia.

In January, 1897, the Deputy Commissioner of the British
government in Rhodesia made a report to the High Commissioner
on several subjects pertaining to the native administration of
the British South Africa Company which he had been instructed to
investigate. One question to be answered was "whether there
exists a law or practice whereby compulsory labor is exacted
from natives, either by the government of the British South
Africa Company, or by private persons with consent of the
government, or by both?" From his lengthy report on this
subject the High Commissioner deduced the following summary of
conclusions, which he communicated to the colonial secretary:

"(1.) That compulsory labour did undoubtedly exist in
Matabeleland, if not in Mashonaland.

(2.) That labour was procured by the various Native
Commissioners for the various requirements of the Government,
mining companies, and private persons.

(3.) That the Native Commissioners, in the first instance,
endeavoured to obtain labour through the indunas, but, failing
in this, they procured it by force."

_Great Britain,
Papers by Command: 1897, C.—8547._

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1897 (January-March).
Conflict of the Judiciary with the Executive and the Volksraad.
The case of R. E. Brown.

In January, 1897, a decision was rendered by the High Court of
the Republic which brought it into conflict with President
Kruger and the Volksraad. This decision was given in
connection with a suit brought against the government of the
South African Republic by an American engineer, Mr. R. E.
Brown, and the claim of Mr. Brown had arisen out of
circumstances which were subsequently related by a speaker in
the United States Senate, as follows: Mr. R. E. Brown, a young
American mining engineer, living and operating in the Cœur
d'Alene district, in the State of Idaho, about eight years
ago, at the invitation of English capitalists, left this
country to go to the South African Republic for the purpose of
assisting in the development of the gold mines of that
country. It was about that time that Hammond, Clements, and
other American engineers went there, and it is not too much to
say that the genius and the energy of those young Americans
more than anything else made that country a great gold
producer and its mines the most valuable of any in the world.
At that time most of the mines were held by English companies
or Germans. The laws were very simple, but in some respects
appear to have been drawn in the interest of the wealthy
syndicates. Upon the discovery of new mines the President of
the Republic by proclamation opened them to mining locations,
fixing a day and hour at which they would be opened to such
location. Thereafter persons desiring to stake out mines had
to go to the office of the responsible clerk of the district
in which the mines were located to make application for
licenses to locate the mines, and thereafter they were
authorized, either in person or by deputy, to go on the ground
and make mining locations.
{474}
Under this system most of the valuable mines of the country
had been absorbed, as I said, by English and German
syndicates. The mode in which they operated to absorb the
mines was to place their men upon the newly opened ground and
at the earliest possible moment apply for licenses to locate
the mines, and then by means of couriers with swift horses, or
by signals from mountain to mountain where that was possible, to
convey information to their men and cause the mines to be
located before their rivals could get on the ground. Mr. Brown
had not been in the country very long before he learned of this
antiquated system, and he determined on the next opening of
mines to apply to their location some of the snap and go of
American methods.

"In June, 1895, President Kruger by proclamation opened the
mines on the Witfontein farm, district of Potchefstroom, the
responsible clerk for which resided at Doornkop, in that
district. Mr. Brown determined that he would acquire some of
these mines, at least, and as large a number of them as
possible. Witfontein was only 30 miles from Doornkop. The
mines were known to be very valuable, because they had been
prospected on each side and it was found that valuable
gold-bearing reefs ran through them from end to end.
Accordingly he purchased heliographic instruments and employed
expert heliographic operators, and without the knowledge of his
rivals established heliographic communication between Doornkop
and Witfontein. Then he placed his men upon the ground, and on
the 19th day of July, 1895, the earliest period at which he
was permitted to do so, he appeared at the office of the
responsible clerk and sought licenses to locate 1,200 mines
upon this ground. However, on the day before the opening of
the mines his rivals had found out about the heliographic
communication, but they were beaten in the race. In that
extremity they communicated with President Kruger by wire and
induced him on the night of the 18th to issue a second
proclamation, withdrawing the mines of Witfontein from the
privilege of mining locations, and when Mr. Brown appeared at
the office of the responsible clerk and tendered his money he
was met with the information of this action on the part of the
President of the South African Republic, and his application
was refused. But nothing daunted he caused his agents on the
ground to locate the mines the same as if the licenses had
been granted to him, and then he brought suit before the high
court of justice of the South African Republic against the
Republic, alleging the facts substantially as I have stated
them and praying that the authorities be compelled to issue to
him licenses for the mines located, or in lieu thereof that
compensation be made to him in the sum of £372,400, amounting
to about $1,850,000. While this suit was pending it was sought
to re-enforce the action of the President in withdrawing these
lands, and the Volksraad [passed a resolution approving the
withdrawal and declaring that no person should be entitled to
compensation on account of it]."

_United States Congressional Record,
January 21, 1901, page 1370._

On Mr. Brown's suit, the High Court of the Republic decided
that the claimant's right to the land was good, and could not
be set aside by ex post facto measures of the Executive or the
Legislature. The President and the Volksraad refused to submit to
this decision, and passed a law to overrule it, on the ground
that, under the Grondwet (constitution), the Volksraad is the
highest power in the state. In a subsequent public statement
of the matter, Justice Kotze, the Chief Justice, explained the
issue that was thus raised between his court and the
President, and also related the circumstances of a compromise
by which it was settled temporarily, as follows:

"This so-called Law Number 1 of 1897 seeks to deprive the
judges of the testing right, authorizes the President to put a
certain question to the members of the bench that they would
not arrogate to themselves the so-called testing power, and
empowers him to instantly dismiss the judge or judges from
whom he receives no answer, or, in his opinion, an
unsatisfactory answer. The judges for the future are also
subjected to a humiliating form of oath. This measure, it
seems almost superfluous to observe, is no law. It alters the
constitution of the country without any previous reference to
the people, and for the reasons given in the Brown case it is
devoid of all legal validity. The five judges, on March 1,
1897, unanimously issued a declaration, stating that by this
so-called Law Number 1 of 1897 a vital violation of the
independence of the bench had taken place, and that the judges
were exposed in future to the suspicion of bribery. In fact,
the nature and tendency of this measure are so immoral that
one of the judges openly said that no honorable man can occupy
a seat on the bench while Law Number 1 of 1897 remains on the
statute book.