Chapter XXIV: Piet Grobler (1)

Lecture delivered by Mr. Sol T. Plaatje before the "Marsh Street Men's Own"
Literary Society in the Lecture Room of their Institute,
Hoe Street, Walthamstow, on February 26, 1915.

Keep me in chains? I defy you.
That is a pow'r I deny you!
I will sing! I will rise!
Up! To the lurid skies --
With the smoke of my soul,
With my last breath,
Tar-feathered, I shall cry:
Ethiopia shall not die!
And hand in hand with Death,
Pass on.

I shall not curse you. But singing --
My singing fatefully ringing
Till startled and dumb
You falter, the sum
Of your crime shall reveal --
This do I prophesy . . .
O Heart wrung dry,
Awake!
Startle the world with thy cry:
Ethiopia shall not die!
Otto L. Bohanan.*

--
* In the Kalahari language, BOHANAN means: `Be combined'.
--

The gentleman whose name forms the title of my lecture is a lawyer, a grand-nephew of the late President Kruger and, till lately, a member of the Union Parliament. He represented the Dutch constituency of Rustenburg, a district whose Burghers were responsible for a kind of administrative native land arrangement in the Transvaal Republic. This arrangement, the result of a petition from Rustenburg, made it compulsory for native landowners in the Republic to register their farms in the names of white people. In accordance with it, Natives who bought land had to register it in the name of the Minister of Native Affairs. But as such Ministers did not always command the trust of the Natives they resorted to the expedient of registering their farms in the names of some European friends, missionaries or otherwise. Some European gentlemen thus became the registered owners of land belonging to Natives, giving the Natives receipts for the money and documents explaining the nature of the transaction. Other Europeans, including missionaries, were not so scrupulous. They gave the Natives no receipt, so that after their death the properties of these Natives passed into the estates of the deceased. The following case is an example.

The native peasants on a Transvaal farm found themselves in such a dilemma after the death of General Joubert, late Superintendent of Natives of the Transvaal Republic. The black "owners" had no document showing that they were the real owners of the farm and that General Joubert's name was only registered to meet the requirements of the Volksraad. In such circumstances they received notice from his executors to leave the General's farm. They appealed to the law-courts and adduced verbal evidence in support of their purchase and ownership of the farm; the sale had been a public one. Besides, according to their ideas, it needed no documentary evidence, since they were legally in possession. The Court, after listening to the evidence concerning the sums paid by individual Natives of the tribe, of the total sum paid for the farm, and of the legal reason why the title bore a white man's name, held that however unfortunate was the position of those Natives if their story was true, it could only give judgment in terms of the title deeds. Thus Natives who were originally dispossessed of their land by conquest, and who swore to having purchased in hard cash land in their own country from the conquerors, were now for the second time, so they stated, dispossessed and turned off that land all owing to the complicated registration under this "Besluit" from Rustenburg.

After the British occupation in 1900, the Courts held that the "Besluit" and its practices did not have the force of law, and Natives took advantage of the ruling to transfer their properties to their own names; but in 1913, Mr. Piet Grobler, M.L.A., moved and succeeded in getting the Natives' Land Act carried in the Union Parliament, which has placed the Natives of the whole country in a more terrible plight than were the Natives of the Transvaal Republic before the war.

Since he took his seat in the Union Parliament, Mr. Piet Grobler, like Mr. Keyter of Ficksburg, has given the Natives no rest. He first made his power felt in 1911, when General Smuts introduced a Bill to consolidate the marriage laws of the four Provinces. Mr. Grobler then moved a fatal colour clause which had the effect of killing the Bill, for the Ministry, on finding that the Bill could only be carried with the assistance of the Unionists, preferred to drop it rather than divide the Boer majority; and hence, thanks to Mr. Grobler, the chaotic confusion still obtains in the South African marriage laws.

This gentleman, in 1913, led the attack in Parliament on Sir Richard Solomon, the Union's representative in London, for not keeping his mouth shut when he is among British foreigners, and for daring to suggest British emigration to South Africa. As stated above, Mr. Grobler demanded, among other things, that the Government should introduce "during this session" (1913) a law to stop the purchase and lease of land by Natives, and the Natives' Land Act of 1913 was the result of the demand -- a measure whose destructive severity forced the Natives to sue for Imperial protection against the South African Parliament.

When the present European War broke out, Mr. Grobler was among the Parliamentary clique of representatives whose Christian principles forbade them to vote for an armed expedition against their friendly neighbours, the Germans. They said that, in Deuteronomy 19:14, God specifically warned the Boers against moving the landmarks of their neighbours. But strange to say, the religious scruples of these pious objectors never revolted against removing the landmarks of their native neighbours and of appropriating, not only their land and their labour, but even the persons of these neighbours. The Natives, according to Mr. Luedorf, a German evangelist among the Bechuana, witnessed the Boer trekkers maltreating conquered Natives and taking their children as slaves. Children who were unable to walk to their serfdom being gathered in a heap and burnt alive. This, says Mr. Luedorf, caused the Natives to exclaim: "Mzilikasi, the Matabele King, was cruel to his enemies, but kind to those he conquered; whilst the Boers are cruel to their enemies and ill-treat and enslave their friends."*

-- * "The Boer States" (Keane), pp. 137-138. --

Now, Mzilikasi had no Bible, but the Boer has the Bible and professes to honour it. But his Bible, being of a flexible sort, it did not prevent a certain clique of Boers from taking up arms against the Government of which Mr. Lloyd George (a gentleman who staked his reputation and risked his life in his fearless protests against the annexation of the Boer Republics) was a prominent member; and against the Liberal Government, which, as compensation for the mere change of flags, made them a nice little present in the shape of the two old English Colonies of South Africa and the undisturbed permission to rule all that is therein. Mr. Piet Grobler, the author of most of our miseries, reached the climax of his career when, after voting against the Union expedition to German South West Africa, he not only persuaded British subjects not to volunteer for service in the expedition, but himself joined a force, as alleged by the South African papers to hand by the latest mail, to shoot down the King's loyal subjects. He was taken prisoner by General Botha's forces at the head of a rebel commando, presumably whilst on the way to join the Kaiser's forces in the German Colony. He is thus one of the members of the Union Parliament who forfeited their seats by breaking the Parliamentary oath and participating in the recent rebellion.

Mr. Solicitor Grobler's ideas about the sacredness of an oath are curious and original. Every member of the Union Parliament, before taking his seat, has to subscribe to the following oath of allegiance "before the Governor-General, or some person authorized by him", usually a Judge of the Supreme Court:

== I, M. . . . M. . . . do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George V, his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. ==

Mr. Grobler, it is said, was caught red-handed in the treasonable act of leading a force of fifty armed rebels against the Government, and for his breach of the oath he was taken prisoner. Last week, whilst his trial was still pending, he applied for bail, and in support of his application, he pleaded that he was anxious TO ATTEND TO HIS PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES. Here is a bit of Boer candour for you!

The honourable and learned member is further stated to have pleaded that his district provided the largest proportion of rebels and he was anxious to be in Capetown when Parliament opens this afternoon,* in order to be able to represent their case when the Legislature discusses the rebellion. That is South African logic in a nutshell. The Judge, however, took a rational view of things and dismissed the application.

-- * The S. A. Parliament opened on the afternoon of the same day as the Lecture. --

There may be motives other than those stated by the incarcerated member of Parliament actuating his desire to get to Capetown.

Every member of Parliament who absents himself without leave forfeits 2 Pounds a day out of his Parliamentary emoluments, so that Mr. Grobler's continued confinement in prison would entail a serious financial deficit. This was not the only instance in which anxiety of this kind was betrayed by recipients of Government bounties in South Africa. There are a large number of well-to-do Boers who draw annually hundreds of pounds from the Union Treasury, salaries which a paternal Government taxes the poorly paid labourers of South Africa to provide. This is particularly the case in the Transvaal. There, princely salaries are paid for filling such superfluous posts as that of "Inspector of White Labour", "Field Cornet", and kindred offices. The Field Cornet of each sub-district of the Transvaal is a very important gentleman, as is evinced by the intense labour attached to his office. The duties of this "hard-worked" functionary consist of the checking of the Parliamentary voters list of his ward, once every two years, and of acting as chief canvasser and election agent for the Ministerial candidate, who, however, is usually returned unopposed; and for these onerous duties he is rewarded by an ungrateful Government with the "beggarly" salary of 260 Pounds a year.

Besides these, there are sundry little sinecures, equally remunerative, to which well-to-do Dutch farmers, who are the more generally preferred, aspire; and each fills his role with acceptable dignity and a serious sense of responsibility. Consequently, there is more gnashing of teeth on the farm over the loss of one of these appointments than over the failure of a whole year's crop.

Several of these nominal "members" of the Union Civil Service were said to have taken up arms and joined the rebellion. According to the South African papers, the wife of one of them applied to the defence office for the salary of her husband. When it was pointed out to her that her husband was at that time engaged in fighting against the forces of the Defence Department, she coolly told the official that that had nothing to do with his private affairs, i.e., the income from the Government. In regard to the faithfulness of the class of officials just mentioned, I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of my audience to the fact that, as the electoral supporters of the Cabinet, they guided the policy of the Union Government during the past five years, and they are the type of legislators in whose tender care the Imperial Government would fain entrust the liberties of the voteless Natives without even the safeguard of a right of appeal.

Personally I am not revengeful, and would wish Mr. Grobler every success in his defence; the Transvaal native taxpayer, on the other hand, earns an average wage of 20 Pounds per annum: out of this he pays taxation on the same scale as the white labourer who earns 25 Pounds a month; in addition, he pays a native tax of 3 Pounds 4s. per year, presumably as a tax on the colour of his skin, for no white man pays that. This extra tax, apparently, is in order that Transvaal Field Cornets and members of Parliament should more easily draw their pay. In return for all these payments, and as a result of Mr. Grobler's legislative efforts, the Transvaal native taxpayer got the Natives' Land Act of 1913; and I am afraid that HE will not be very sorry to know that some one else enjoys the 400 Pounds per annum hitherto received by Mr. Grobler, together with his free first-class travelling ticket over the South African railways.

British pioneer officials, in Africa and elsewhere, have for generations been left in charge of mixed communities of white Colonials and black Natives and other immigrants. In spite of occasional human lapses, they have ruled these communities successfully throughout the past century, and maintained the high administrative reputation of the English in Africa, Asia and other parts of the globe. The dominant race in South Africa, on the other hand, may be fit to govern themselves, but their dealings with us show them to be wholly unfit to rule the native races. There is no more glaring illustration of this weakness than the conduct of the rebel Boers and the loyal Boers during the present war. According to my latest information from different centres of South Africa, native peasants were horsewhipped into the enemy's service as soon as the standard of rebellion was unfurled. There can be no reason to doubt the veracity of my information when the Press reports have clearly shown that even a white skin has ceased to be a protection against illtreatment. At least one loyal Magistrate and a postmaster were violently assaulted by General De Wet's Burghers, so the official dispatches say. Those shopkeepers who hesitated to open their stores to the rebels were sjambokked as were the ordinary Natives, and the Mayor of a "Free" State town was also flogged.

After the proclamation of martial law General Botha marshalled the loyal Boers throughout the country. These loyal Burghers, taking advantage of the presence of martial law, committed all kinds of excesses against loyal coloured civilians. These atrocities not only took place away in the Backveld, but sometimes in Capetown and Kimberley, the centres of African civilization; there black men were frequently tied to the wagon-wheels and lashed by the loyal Boers, and some of these coloured victims, I am told, have been cruelly done to death.

Of course, if the particular Burgher who dealt the death-blow can be identified he will be prosecuted, but that will not resuscitate the victims. It will only add misery to the innocent family of the offender. But the fact remains that during the South African War, South Africa was a huge military camp, yet the unarmed Natives, many of whom were then in the enemy's service, suffered nothing but kindness at the hands of Imperial troops, and there never was any conflict between the military and native civilians. And it but reveals the unfitness for self-government of the dominant race out there that the Natives, who sympathize with the Government, should be exposed to violence immediately the loyal Burghers are armed. That is the condition of life under true South African ideals.

Having had the ear of the Union Government since the federation of the South African States, Mr. Piet Grobler and other men of his way of thinking have been largely responsible for the repressive native laws that have found their way into the statute book of the Union. If the Natives of the other three Provinces had votes like those of the Cape Province, they would help to return sober-minded members to Parliament who are not inimical to the public welfare, instead of which they have been represented in the South African Parliament by budding subalterns of the German Army in South-West Africa. But since the Imperial Government in its wisdom when granting a Constitution to South Africa saw fit to withhold from the blacks their only weapon of protection against hostile legislation, viz., the power of the ballot, they surely, in common fairness to the Natives and from respect for their own honour, cannot reasonably stand aside as mere onlookers while self-condemned enemies of the Crown ram their violent laws down the throats of the Natives. The Imperial Government by the obligations of its overlordship and its plighted word to the Natives, at the time of the federation, is in duty bound to free the unrepresented Natives from the shackles of these laws, or otherwise, declare its guardianship of the interests of the Natives to have ceased, and counsel these weaker races to apply elsewhere for relief.

* * * * *

Epilogue

Oh, hear us for our native land,
The land we love the most:
Our fathers' sepulchres are here,
And here our kindred dwell;
Our children, too; how should we love
Another land so well?
Wreford.

After partaking of hot cross buns at the family table of a dear old English family the day before yesterday (Good Friday), I went to Walthamstow, and there heard a moving discourse delivered by the Rev. James Ellis on the sufferings and death of Christ for the redemption of mankind.

At my abode this morning, after receiving such tokens of friendship as Easter eggs and artistic picture cards, I attended an Easter service at the London University Hall and heard the little choir of four voices rendering mellifluous anthems to the glory of God. At the invitation of the Rev. R. P. Campbell this afternoon I went to Lloyds Park to tell the P.S.A. there about a South African Easter and to deliver at the same time the native message to the British public.

In the evening I went to the City Temple, where I listened to an intellectual Easter sermon, by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, on the triumph of Christianity, and heard the uniformed choir artistically sing doxologies to the risen Christ.

As I recall these services, I am transported in thought to St. Martin's Church in the heart of the "Free" State, 6,000 miles away, where thirty-seven years ago, as an unconscious babe in my godmother's arms, I went through my first religious sacrament, performed by an aged missionary who made the sign of the cross on my forehead and on my breast. I think also of another church on the banks of the Vaal River where, over twenty years ago, another missionary laid his white hands on my curly head and received my vow to forsake the Devil and all his works. I know that in these two places, as well as in all other native churches and chapels throughout South Africa, native congregations have this day been singing in their respective houses of worship and in a variety of tongues about the risen Christ. But thinking also of the lofty spires of the Dutch Reformed churches in the South African towns and dorps, I am forced to remember that coloured worshippers are excluded from them. Still, in these churches as well, Dutch men and Dutch women have this day been singing of the triumphs of the risen Christ. Yet to-morrow some of these white worshippers, in the workshops and in the parks, will be expressing an opposite sentiment to that conveyed in their songs of praise, namely, "Down with the verdoemde schepsels" (damned black creatures) -- the Natives -- for whom also, these white worshippers say, Christ died.

The Infant Christ, when King Herod sought to murder Him, found an asylum in Africa.

The Messiah, having been scourged, mocked, and forced to bear His cross up to Golgotha, and sinking under its weight, an African, by name Simon of Cyrene, relieved Him of the load.

To-day British troops are suffering untold agony in the trenches in a giant struggle for freedom. In this stupendous task they are assisted by sable Africans from the British, French, and Belgian colonies of the Dark Continent, thus fulfilling the Biblical prophecy, "From Africa (Egypt) I have called my son." But other Africans, again, are debarred by the South African Constitution on account of their colour from doing their share in this war of redemption. This prohibition surely carries the conviction that the native complaint against the South African Constitution is something more than a mere sentimental grievance.

The newspapers are telling us of "a growing spirit of justice in South Africa"; but in the face of what is happening to-day, the Natives are wondering if the word `justice', in this newspaper allegation, is not a misprint for `hatred', for up till as late as 1914 whole congregations have been arrested on leaving some of their farm chapels on "Free" State and Transvaal farms. They had their passes in their pockets, but the police contended that they had no special permits, signed by the landowners on whose farms the chapels are situated, to attend divine service at the particular places of worship on that particular day, and the courts upheld this contention. Up to five years ago no such sacrilegious proceedings interfered with the Sunday attendances of native worshippers in the same country, so that there is no mistake as to the kind of spirit that is "growing in South Africa".

* * * * *

When a man comes to you with stories about a "growing spirit of justice in South Africa", ask him if he knows that in 1884 there was a great debate in the Cape Parliament as to whether Natives should be permitted to exercise the franchise, and that the ayes had it. Ask him, further, if he thinks that such a proposal could ever be entertained to-day by any South African Parliament. If he is honest, he will be bound to say "no". Then ask him, "Where is your growing spirit of justice?"

* * * * *

In 1909, a South African Governor made a great speech in which
he declaimed against the South African policy of pinpricking the blacks.

In 1911, another South African Governor authorized the publication
of regulations in which, by prohibiting the employment of coloured artisans
on the South African mines, the pinpricks were accentuated.

In 1913, a South African Governor signed the Natives' Land Act
which made the Natives homeless in South Africa. Whereas the Government
have announced their intention not to disfranchise the South African rebels,
judging from the present legislative tendency we fear that,
unless the Imperial Government can be induced to interfere,
it is not improbable that should the rebels return to power
after the general election

In 1916, there will be horrible enactments in store for the blacks.

* * * * *

In 1906, His Majesty's Government gave the Transvaal Colony
self-government under a constitution which included a clause placing
the voteless native taxpayers under the special protection of the Crown.

In 1907, His Majesty's Government likewise gave the Orange River Colony
(now Orange "Free" State) self-government under a constitution
which contained a similar provision. At this time the Governor of Natal,
as representing the King, was Supreme Chief of the Zulus in that Colony.
The Natives lived happily under these protecting reservations,
and the white people had no complaint against the just restraint
of the Imperial suzerainty.

In 1909, His Majesty's Government passed the Union Constitution, sweeping away
all these safeguards. In that Act they practically told South Africa to do
what she liked with the Natives in these three Colonies and South Africa
is doing it. Where, then, is this "growing spirit"?

* * * * *

During the South African War in 1901, the Imperial Government
informed the Federal (Dutch) Government that no peace terms
could be considered which did not extend to the native races
the same privileges -- the rights of the franchise -- which are enjoyed
by the Natives of the Cape Colony.

In 1902, the British Imperial and Dutch representatives signed the Peace terms
at Vereeniging. In these, the rights of the coloured citizens
were postponed till after the old Republics had responsible Government.
Responsible Government has since been granted, and has in turn
been succeeded by the Union. But when the Imperial Parliament,

In 1909, considered the Act of Union, English and Dutch South Africans
came over and represented to the Imperial authorities that there would be
a striking demonstration (or words to that effect) against the federation,
and even against South Africa's relation to the Mother Country
if native rights were as much as mentioned in the Constitution;
and the South African Native Franchise has now receded as far off
as the Greek calends. So where is that "growing spirit of justice"?

* * * * *

When you speak of converting Mohammedans, let the question be asked: "What must Mohammedans think of those whose religion having said `In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread,' they nevertheless uphold the policy of rulers who pass regulations debarring one section of the community from following an honest occupation in their native land? And what impression must be created in the minds of black converts who are subjected to discriminations, including prohibitions that were not in existence five years ago?"

And if in spite of beautiful voices that I have heard this Easter Sunday singing anthems concerning the triumph of the kingdom of love the British flag continues to defend the policy of repression and colour hatred in South Africa, then I fear that the black victims of this policy, many of them converted to Christianity through your efforts, might very well class your Easter anthems and their great teaching with the newspaper canard relative to a "growing spirit of justice in South Africa"; for our bitter experience proves that spirit to be at best but a dwindling one.

Two years ago I was alarmed by the impious utterances of a coloured man whose friendship I valued. He being influential among our people, I gently remonstrated with him lest through his action many of our people become unsettled in their faith. This was his explanation: He was going along an East Rand suburb at eleven o'clock one Sunday morning when the bells were ringing. He saw a number of people entering a Dutch church, and as he was far from home he mingled with them, intending to spend the hour at worship instead of continuing his walk. But no sooner was he inside than the usher jostled him out of the church, hailed a policeman and handed him in charge, so that he spent the next hour in the charge office instead of at chapel. On the Monday morning he was convicted by the East Rand Magistrate and fined 1 Pound for trespassing on a private place, to wit, a church. And that was a Dutch Reformed church, the State Church of South Africa. Others had reproached him before me for such utterances, he said, but he will have "no more of our religious mockery with its theoretical `Come unto Me' and its practical `1 Pound or a month with hard labour'."

John Ruskin, writing on `State Intervention', says:

== "When a peasant mother sees one of her careless children fall into a ditch, her first proceeding is to pull him out; her second, to box his ears; her third, ordinarily, to lead him carefully a little way by the hand, or send him home for the rest of the day. The child usually cries, and very often would clearly prefer remaining in the ditch; and if he understood any of the terms of politics, would certainly express resentment at the interference with his individual liberty: but the mother has done her duty." ==

Ruskin goes further and depicts the calamities of a mother nation which, like a foxhunter, complies with the request of its daughter nations "to be left in muddy independence."*

-- * `Political Economy of Art': Addenda (J. E., Section 127). --

Let us appeal to you, in conclusion, to remember that the victorious Christ "has gathered your people into a great nation, and sent them to sow beside all waters and multiply sure dwellings on the earth. . . .

"Let not the crown of your pride be as a fading flower. But be equal to your high trust: reverent in the use of freedom, just in the exercise of power, and generous in the protection of the weak."

* * * * *

This has been the most strenuous winter that the writer has ever experienced: a dark, dreary winter of almost continuous rains, snowflakes, cold, mud and slush. Reading of the severity of English winters at a distance, I never could have realized that the life I have lived in England during the past four months was possible. An existence from which the sun's rays are almost always obliterated by the inclement weather, by snow and by fog. I cannot describe the sensations caused by the dismal gloom of the sunless days -- a most depressing life -- especially in December, when it would suddenly turn dark, compelling one to work by gaslight when the clocks indicated that it was high noon. Not till then did I realize why some people are said to worship the sun. I find that I have unlearned my acquaintance with the larger planets and heavenly bodies (a knowledge acquired since boyhood) because the winter fog and clouds have continually hidden the moon and stars from view.

* * * * *

But now that the country is throwing off its winter cloak and dressing itself in its green, gorgeous array; now that King Day shines in all his glory through the mist by day, and the moon and stars appear in their brilliancy in the evenings; now that, as if in harmony with the artistic rendering of Easter anthems by your choirs, the thrush and the blackbird twitter forth the disappearance of the foggy winter with its snow, sleet and wet; now that the flocks of fleecy sheep, which for the past four months have been in hiding and conspicuous by their absence, come forward again and spread triumphantly over the green as if in celebration of the dawn of the new spring; now that the violet and the daffodil, the marguerite and the hyacinth, the snowdrop and the bluebell, glorious in appearance, also announce, each in its own way, the advent of sunny spring, we are encouraged to hope that, "when peace again reigns over Europe", when white men cease warring against white men, when the warriors put away the torpedoes and the bayonets and take up less dangerous implements, you will in the interest of your flag, for the safety of your coloured subjects, the glory of your Empire, and the purity of your religion, grapple with this dark blot on the Imperial emblem, the South African anomaly that compromises the justice of British rule and seems almost to belie the beauty, the sublimity and the sincerity of Christianity.

Shall we appeal to you in vain? I HOPE NOT.

[ Map was inserted here. ]

Report of the Lands Commission

An Analysis

To attempt to place the different people of the country
in water-tight compartments is very attractive in a general way,
but it is bound to fail.

You have got a comparatively small European population
-- a million and a quarter -- and something like
half a million mixed race, and then you have got between
four and five million of the aboriginal inhabitants of the country.

Any policy that aims at setting off a very small proportion
of the land of the country for the use and occupation
of the very vast majority of the inhabitants, and reserving
for the use and occupation of a very small minority of the inhabitants
the great majority of the land of the country, is a policy
that economically must break somewhere. You can start and move
in that direction to a certain extent, but you will be driven back
by the exigencies of a law that operates outside the laws of Parliament --
the law of supply and demand.

This theory of segregation is to some minds attractive,
but the forgotten point is that you need the Native.
You cannot segregate him because you need him. If you drive him
out of his existing life and occupation, you run a great risk
that you will lose many of your Natives.
Hon. W. P. Schreiner, K.C., C.M.G.,
(High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa,
Ex-Premier of Cape Colony,) before the Lands Commission.

If we are to deal fairly with the Natives of this country,
then according to population we should give them
four-fifths of the country, or at least half.
Hon. C. G. Fichardt, M.L.A.

The best way to segregate the races would be by means of a boundary fence
along the main line of Railway from Port Elizabeth,
straight through to Bloemfontein and Pretoria, to Pietersburg,
putting the blacks on one side and the whites on the other side
of the Railway line.*
M. J. M. Nyokong, before the Native Affairs Commission.

--
* This would give about one-third of the Union to the four and a half
million blacks, the one and a quarter million whites retaining two-thirds.
--

During the past two years while the Empire was involved in one of the mightiest struggles that ever shook the foundations of the earth, South Africa was wasting time and money in a useless and unprecedented attempt at territorial segregation betwixt white and black. Judging by the recently published Report of the Lands Commission, however, she has failed ignominiously in the task.

Whenever, on behalf of the Natives, the hardships disclosed in this book were mentioned, the South African authorities invariably replied that these hardships would cease as soon as the Commission submits its Report. This has now been done. General Botha laid the Report on the table of the house on May 3, 1916, and intimated as he did so that "the Government propose to take no immediate action upon the recommendations, but will give the country twelve months to consider the Report and the evidence." Meanwhile the eviction of Natives from farms continues in all parts of the country, and the Act debars them from settling anywhere, not even in Natal, although Natal witnesses (like the Chairman of the Commission) have definitely claimed the exemption of their Colony from this form of Union tyranny.

It is a Report of many parts. A good deal of it is instructive and much of it is absurd. Most of the Commissioners and many of the witnesses have expressed themselves with a candid disregard for the rights of other people.

Government publications, at least, should be beyond question; thus, old Government archives give correct histories of native tribes for 500 years back, because their compilers invariably sought and obtained reliable evidence from Natives about themselves. But this Commission's Report (to mention but one instance among several inaccuracies) tells us, on page 27 of U.G. 25-'16, of "the original inhabitants of Moroka ward who had lived in Bechuanaland under the Paramount Chief Montsioa (sic). Their original chief was Sebuclare" (!)

No Barolong tribe ever had a chief by this name. The fact is, that Governments of to-day frequently publish unreliable native records, for they are mainly based on information obtained from self-styled experts, who, in South Africa, should always be white.

Again, it is not explained why the Commission publishes, in a permanent record, particulars of encumbrances on native farms such as we find on page 29 of the same volume. Is it to damage the credit of the native farmers? Supposing some of the hypothecations given in the "list of mortgaged native-owned farms in the Thaba Ncho District" were wiped off before the Report was issued, will it be fair to the native owners to read, say in 1999, that their farms are mortgaged for those amounts?

In the published evidence given before other Commissions questions put to the witnesses are usually printed along with the answers. This has not been done in the present instance, and consequently some of these replies are so clumsily put that the reader cannot even guess what the witness was answering. If the questions had also been printed, the whole Report might have been illuminating. It is interesting, for instance, to read what was apparently a lively dispute between the Commissioners and one witness -- Mr. J. G. Keyter, M.L.A., the arch-enemy of the blacks and one of the promoters of the whole trouble -- as to what is, or is not, the meaning of the Natives' Land Act. Indeed the various definitions and explanations of the Act, given by the Commissioners and some of the witnesses, contradict those previously given by the Union Government and Mr. Harcourt. And while the ruling whites, on the one hand, content themselves with giving contradictory definitions of their cruelty the native sufferers, on the other hand, give no definitions of legislative phrases nor explanations of definitions. All that they give expression to is their bitter suffering under the operation of what their experience has proved to be the most ruthless law that ever disgraced the white man's rule in British South Africa.

The Report and the evidence at any rate bear out the statement set forth in this book, namely, that the main object in view is not segregation, but the reduction of all the black subjects of the King from their former state of semi-independence to one of complete serfdom.

The Commission's Awards

The population of South Africa is very commonly overestimated. As a matter of fact there are in South Africa about one and a quarter million whites and four and a half million blacks. According to the Census of 1911, the exact figure is a million less than the population of London, -- viz., 5,973,394 -- scattered over an area of 143,000,000 morgen -- nearly ten times the size of England. A morgen is about 2 1/9 English acres.

But if we are to understand what is proposed, we would have to consider the position in the sub-continent under different heads: --

I. English or Urban Areas, inhabited by 660,000 whites and 800,000 blacks:
1 3/4 quarter million morgen; and

II. The remaining 141 1/4 million morgen, which the Commission
would divide as follows: --

(a) NATIVE AREAS, for the Bantu and such other coloured races as are
classed along with them numbering just about 4,000,000 SOULS:
18 1/4 MILLION MORGEN.

(b) EUROPEAN AREAS, or nearly the whole of Rural South Africa,
for the occupation of 660,000 RURAL WHITES (mainly Boers):
123,000,000 MORGEN.

The English Areas (I) are not affected by the troubles which form the subject of this book. None but the four million blacks will be allowed to buy land in the Native Area (II(a)); while all the blacks who hitherto lived on the Boer Areas (II(b)) must clear out. They would only be allowed to come back to Union territory as servants to the white farming population.

That, in a nutshell, is the Report of the Segregation Commission.

The Chairman Dissents

On the whole these drastic findings are against the weight of evidence. The Report, moreover, shows that the decisions were not carried through without some difference of opinion. It would seem that Sir William Beaumont, the Chairman of the Commission, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court (whose legal training and experience were assuredly entitled to more respect than they received) gave a saner interpretation of the Natives' Land Act. He evidently wished to treat the amount of land awarded to Natives as an instalment to which additions might be made in the future. This, he said, was quite within the power of the Commission to recommend. But his colleagues presumably preferred, not the legal, but their own interpretation, namely, that this sane interpretation was "contrary to the intention of the legislature". The Chairman's well-weighed judicial verdict appears on page 42 of volume one of the Report: --

== In my opinion, neither the Natives' Land Act, nor the terms of its reference, require the Commission to delimit the whole extent of the Union into European and Native Areas respectively . . . and I think it is quite competent for this Commission, where this cannot be conveniently done, to leave undefined areas which would be open alike to white and black for the acquisition of land. But this opinion is not shared by my fellow-commissioners, who regard it as contrary to the intentions of the legislature and the terms of the Act. ==

Sir William Beaumont's rejected opinion is supported by the evidence of Senator T. L. Schreiner, who said: --

== When the Bill was before the House, I brought to its notice the fact that there were areas in the country which it was impossible to declare native areas or non-native areas. The late Minister said it was not the intention to divide the whole country of the Union; therefore I thought that the difficulty was covered (p. 224 vol. ii). ==

But as in Parliament so also in the Commission it would appear that the steam-roller was set in motion; and it operated in each instance in favour of repressing the black races.

These four Commissioners presumably thinking that Imperial attention would be too much engrossed with the war to notice such insignificant affairs as the throttling of the South African Blacks, seem to have decided that now or never was the opportune moment for degrading the aborigines into helots; therefore, the Chairman, finding that he could not persuade his colleagues to adopt his view of things, indited the following minority report respecting his own Province of Natal and Zululand (vol. i. p. 41): --

== The conditions in Natal are, and have been, totally different to those in the other Provinces. There has been no demand in Natal for the enforcement of a Squatters Act or for any further segregation of the natives. Indeed, the opinion of Natal, as expressed in the evidence given before the Commission by those best qualified to know, is against the application of the Natives' Land Act to Natal.

In Natal, since it became a British possession, the Natives have always had, and largely exercised, the right to purchase land outside their defined locations, and they regard any infringement of this right as a breach of the terms of the Proclamation issued by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria at the time the country was annexed by Great Britain. (See the petitions presented to the Commission.) The Natives in Natal now privately own about 359,000 acres, on which are residing some 37,000 Natives. These lands are, in certain areas, so intermixed with lands owned by Europeans that any line of demarcation can only be arbitrarily made, and may result in serious hardship or injustice to both European and Native owners.

The area set aside for native occupation (including mission reserves) and preserved for their use by Royal Letters Patent and by the South Africa Act, amount to nearly two and a half million acres, or about 15 per cent. of the whole of Natal. These areas are, according to the native mode of occupation, almost all fully occupied, and do not afford more than a very limited opportunity for the introduction of Natives from outside.

A further point which has to be considered, and it is one on which the Natives lay great stress, is that it seems unjust to debar the native from purchasing land in areas where the Indian, who is alien to the country, is free to do so.

Zululand

As regards Zululand, it is sufficient here to point out that Zululand was delimited into native reserves and Crown lands by the Zululand Delimitation Commission of 1902-1904, the Crown lands being made available for disposal by the Natal Government, to which the country was annexed. It was not, however, intended, nor did the Zulus understand, that they were to be deprived of their right to acquire any portion of the reserved Crown lands by purchase.

The delimitation was made after a very thorough inquiry by persons well acquainted with the Zulus and their country; but, even so, we find that whole tribes or large portions of tribes who had long been in occupation of their lands -- some of which were not acquired by conquest but by voluntary surrender -- were not provided for, and were left on the reserved Crown lands. There are to-day some 24,328 Zulus and Amatonga occupying these lands, and they are asking to-day for their lands to be restored to them. The delimitation was acquiesced in by the Zulus only because they had no alternative, and the inevitable had to be accepted. Since the delimitation they have remained loyal and peaceful and the bitterness of the losses suffered is past.

The Delimitation Commission in its report expressed the hope that the delimitation would be: "as final a settlement as it is possible to effect, and that no further changes will be initiated in the near future . . ."; but if the question is now re-opened and European and native areas are defined anew, I think endless trouble is likely to ensue. If any alterations may be found necessary in the future, either in the interests of black or white, the machinery exists whereby such alteration can be effected with little or no disturbance of the natives. ==

Colonel Stanford Reverses His Views

One redeeming feature in a Report which otherwise is melancholy reading is to be found in the consistency of the statesmen of Natal, which is admirable in comparison with the fast degenerating land policy of Cape Statesmen. Ten years ago the Native Affairs Commission reported on the question of Land Tenure in South Africa. Messrs. Marshall Campbell and S. O. Samuelson, Natal representatives on that Commission -- ably supported by Colonel Stanford, the Cape representative -- expressed themselves unambiguously against this limitation of native progress. History was about to repeat itself in favour of justice in the latest Commission but for the manner in which Colonel Stanford completely reversed his former attitude. He is the only member of this Commission who had a seat on the first Commission, and in 1905 he was reported thus: --

== Col. Stanford dissented from the view of the majority on the question of restricting to certain areas only the right of the individual Native to purchase land. He holds that the acquisition by the more advanced Natives of vested individual interests in the land is a powerful incentive to loyalty. In his opinion sufficient cause has not been shown for the curtailment of privileges enjoyed for many years in the British Colonies. . . .

The contention that the safety of European races must be guarded by such restrictions as have been under discussion he does not hold to be sound. The Church, professions, commerce, trade and labour are open to the ambition and energy of the Natives, and with so many avenues open to their advance the danger of their swamping Europeans, if a real one, is not avoided by denying them the right individually to buy land.

He can see no decadence of the vigour, the enterprise and the courage which, since the occupation of the Cape Peninsula by the early Dutch settlers, have resulted in the extension of European control and occupation to the limits now reached. Moreover, artificial restrictions of the occupation of land in the late Dutch Republics resulted in the evasion of the law by various forms of contract whereby native occupation of farms was effected, while at the same time advantage was taken of the opportunities thus afforded of fraudulent practices on the part of Europeans employed as agents or so-called trustees. . . .

If the design be to allow purchase by Natives in localities regarded as unsuitable for Europeans, sight is lost of the fact that usually the Native who desires to become a landed proprietor belongs to the civilized class, and such localities offer to him no attraction.

Europeans are more and more entering into occupation of land regarded as set aside for Natives. Missionaries, traders and others are permitted to establish themselves and carry on the duties of their respective callings. Townships spring up at the various seats of magistracy and Census Returns clearly show that such influx is steadily increasing in volume. It is thus demonstrated that the idea of separate occupation of land by Natives, even in their own Reserves, is not maintained at the present time, nor can it be in the future.*

-- * `Colonies and British Possessions -- Africa (Session 1905)', vol. lv. pp. 102-103. -- ==

But now we must conclude that the gallant Colonel has fallen a victim to the new reactionary spirit, for he has deserted Sir W. Beaumont, the Natal Commissioner, and taken up with the Northerners, a position diametrically opposed to the noble sentiments he then laid down.

The Cape Land Policy

The pronounced inconsistency of the Cape representative on these Commissions is in harmony with the reaction which has set in as regards the Land Policy of the Cape. It is true that the Cape, so far, has been more liberal in the matter of the Franchise. And the very fact that some of the Cape voters' lists included some native names has had a restraining influence on the utterances of certain Cape members of Parliament who would otherwise have given expression to reactionary sentiments. But it is no less true that in later years the same native Franchise has been hypocritically used as a cloak to cover a multitude of political sins, such, for instance, as free trade in liquor among the Natives and the systematic robbery of native lands. To my own personal knowledge, the Cape Government have on several occasions, arbitrarily, on the slightest pretext, or none whatever, confiscated lands that were awarded to native tribes by Imperial representatives, in the name of Queen Victoria, and parcelled them out to Europeans.

A striking instance of such rapacity on the part of successive Cape administrations appears on page 30 of the Minute by Sir William Beaumont, Chairman of the Lands Commission. Sir William shows how loyal black taxpayers in Griqualand West had been systematically robbed of Queen Victoria's gifts and driven from pillar to post. Commission after Commission had been sent out to them at intervals of ten years, systematic spoliation and pillage following the visit of each commission. It has been my sorrow to be among those who witnessed the coming and going of some of these decennial commissions and the truculent attitude of the Cape Government, who, trading on the people's ignorance, treated Queen Victoria's awards like so many scraps of paper, drove these tax-payers from their homes, and invited white men to occupy their territories.

This is what Sir William writes about the Commission of the last decade: --

== The case of these Natives calls for special consideration. They were promised that they would never be removed so long as they remained loyal, and in the end they were burnt out. There is a very strong feeling amongst them that there has been a want of faith towards them.

The subject was specially reported on by Mr. P. Dreyer, Civil Commissioner of Kimberley, on August 27, 1909. He made specific recommendations, which appear to be quite sound, but do not appear to have been adopted. ==

Now, this is only with reference to Griqualand West. But similar acts of violence have marked the land-grabbing propensity of the Cape in Bechuanaland, in Peddie and the Transkei, even during my lifetime.

The So-Called Native Areas

Turning to the evidence, we find that if we omit the depositions of Natal whites, of Missionaries and of Natives, the remaining witnesses -- a minority of the whole -- emphatically declared that the aborigines were not entitled to a square yard of their ancestral lands and that they should be tolerated only as servants. Those, at any rate, who thought that we were entitled to some breathing space, were willing to concede certain little "reserves" in the centre of groups of white men's farms, into which black men and women could be herded like so many heads of cattle, rearing their offspring as best they could and preparing them for a life of serfdom on the surrounding farm properties. They held it to be the duty of the parent serfs to hand over their children, as soon as they were fit, to the farmers who would work them out; and when age and infirmity had rendered them unfit for further service, they could be hustled back to the reserved pens, there to spend the evening of their lives in raising more young serfs for the rising white generation. The Commission's findings seem to have been influenced largely by the latter type of white witness, for all that they award us, in our ancestral South Africa, might be called human incubators considering the amount of space.