Imperialism in South Africa, by J. Ewing Ritchie

Transcribed from the 1879 James Clarke & Co. edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

IMPERIALISM
IN
SOUTH AFRICA.

p. 5 IMPERIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA.

ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL.

It is vain to dispute the fact that those Puritan Fathers—who, upon one occasion, held a meeting, and resolved first that the earth was the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; secondly, that it was the heritage of the saints; and that thirdly, they were the saints, and were, therefore, justified in depriving the natives of their grounds, and in taking possession of them themselves—had a full share of that English faculty of appropriation which has made England the mistress of the seas, and for a while, almost, the ruler of the world; and, as Englishmen, we cannot say that on the whole that wholesale system, which has planted the British flag in every quarter of the globe, has been disastrous to the communities ruled over, or dishonourable to the nation itself. In some cases undoubtedly we have acted unjustly; in some cases the lives and happiness of millions have been placed in incompetent hands; in some cases we have had selfish rulers and incapable officers; but India and Canada and the West Indian Islands and Australia and New Zealand are the better for our rule. An Englishman may well be proud of what his countrymen have done, and it becomes us to review the past in no narrow, carping, and censorious spirit. We have spent money by millions, but then we are rich, and the expenditure has not been an unproductive one. We have sacrificed valuable lives, but the men who have fallen have been embalmed in the nation’s memory, and the story of their heroism will mould the character and fire the ambition and arouse the sympathies of our children’s children, as they did those of our fathers in days gone by; and yet there is a danger lest we undertake responsibilities beyond our means, and find ourselves engaged in contests utterly needless in the circumstances of the case, and certain to result in a vain effusion of blood and expenditure of money. As far as South Africa is concerned, this is emphatically the case. Originally the Cape Settlement was but a fort for the p. 6 the coast. The country is subject to drought, and seems chiefly to be inhabited by diamond diggers, ostrich farmers, and wool growers. Its great agricultural resources are undeveloped, because labour is dear, and all carriage to the coast is expensive. The English never stop in the colonies, but return to England as soon as they have made a fortune. Living is quite as dear as in England, and in many parts dearer. In the Cape Colony, the chief amusements of all classes are riding, driving, shooting, and billiards. In the interior there are fine views to be seen, and in some quarters an abundance of game. The thunderstorms are frightful, the rivers, dry in summer, are torrents in winter. The droughts, the snakes, the red soil dust, and the Kaffirs, are a perpetual nuisance to all decent people. “Although South Africa is a rising colony,” writes Sir Arthur Cunynghame, “I hardly think it offers to the emigrant the chances which he would obtain in Australia or New Zealand. South Africa is not a very rich country. Labour is hard to obtain, and it will be years before irrigation can be carried on a sufficient scale to make agriculture a brilliant Success. Nevertheless, land is so abundant that the energetic colonist is sure, at least, to make a living, and provided he does not drink, has a good chance of becoming a rich man.” A great deal of money is made by ostrich farming and sheep grazing, but they are occupations which require capital. As to cereals, it pays better to buy them than to grow them. A cabbage appears to be a costly luxury, and the price of butter is almost prohibitive. “South Africa,” wrote a Saturday Reviewer recently, “is the paradise of hunters, and the purgatory of colonists.” The remark is not exactly true, but for all practical purposes it may be accepted as the truth. If this be so, how is it, then, it may be asked, we English have been so anxious to get possession of the country? The answer is, We hold the Cape of Good Hope to be desirable as a port of call and harbour of refuge on our way to India; but the opening of the Suez Canal has changed all that, and the reason for which we took it from the Dutch in 1806 does not exist now. Whether the country has ever made a penny by the Cape remains to be proved.

In taking possession of the Cape of Good Hope, we found there a people whom we have annexed against their will, and of whom we have made bitter enemies. These were the original Dutch settlers, or Boers, a primitive, pastoral people, with a good deal of the piety of the Pilgrim Fathers, and who set to work to exterminate the pagans much after the fashion of the Jews, of whom we read in the Old Testament. Their plan of getting rid of the native difficulty was a very effective one. They either made the native a slave, or they drove him away. Mr. Thomas Pringle, one of our earliest colonists, says, “Their demeanour towards us, whom they p. 7 might be supposed naturally to regard with exceeding jealousy, if not dislike, was more friendly and obliging than could, under all the circumstances, have been expected.” They were, he says, uncultivated, but not disagreeable, neighbours, exceedingly shrewd at bargain making; but they were civil and good-natured, and, according to the custom of the country, extremely hospitable; and the same testimony has been borne to them by later travellers. They lived as farmers, and the life agreed with them. The men are finely made, and out of them a grand empire might be raised. In 1815 they made an effort to shake off the British yoke. A Hottentot, named Booy, appeared at the magistrate’s office at Cradock, and complained of the oppressive conduct of a Boer of the name of Frederick Bezuidenhout. Inquiry was accordingly made. The Boer admitted the facts, but, instead of yielding to the magistrate’s order, he boldly declared that he considered this interference between himself and his Hottentot to be a presumptuous innovation upon his rights, and an intolerable usurpation of authority. He told the field-cornet that he set at defiance both himself and the magistrate who had sent him on this officious errand, and, to give further emphasis to his words, he fell violently upon poor Boor, gave him a severe beating, and then bade him go and tell the civil authorities that he would treat them in the same manner if they should dare to come upon his grounds to claim the property of a Hottentot. It must be remembered that when the Boers were handed over to us, without their leave or without their consent being in any way asked, each Boer had perfect control over the liberty and life and limb of every Hottentot under his control. It was only thus he believed his property was safe, and his throat uncut. But to return to Bezuidenhout. The Cape Government could not allow his defiance to pass unheeded. An expedition was sent out against him, and he was shot. The affair excited a great sensation in the country. At a numerous assemblage of the Boers in the neighbourhood, it was resolved to revenge his death. They did more; they resolved to be independent of the hateful British yoke; but, it is needless to add, in vain. England, after putting down Napoleon, and triumphing at Waterloo, was in no mood to be defied by a handful of Dutch farmers in a distant quarter of the globe. But the Cape Government had Kaffir wars to fight, and they could not afford to treat the Boers as absolute enemies, and they were rewarded with a large portion of the territory, won from the Kaffirs in 1819. But this was not sufficient for their earth-hunger. They crossed the boundaries, and, with their lives in their hands, planted themselves among the savages. In 1838 they went off still further from British rule. In that year the slaves were manumitted, and a sum of money was voted as a compensation to p. 8 the Boers. To the shame of the British Government, it must be confessed that the equivalent was never paid them. Despairing of ever receiving it, they sold their rights to Jews and middlemen, and trekked far out into the country into the districts known as Griqualand, Natal, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal. It is because we have followed them there, when there was no need to have done so, that we are now engaged in a costly and bloody war. First we seized Natal; then we took possession of the Diamond Fields, and our last act was the annexation of the Transvaal. How far this system of annexation is to spread, it is impossible to say. It is equally impossible to state what will be its cost in treasure and in men. It seems equally difficult to say upon whom the blame of this annexation system rests. It really seems as if we were villains, as Shakespeare says, by necessity and fools by a divine thrusting on. We should have left the Boers alone. They were not British subjects, and did not want to be such. Natal was not British territory when they settled there, neither was the Orange Free State Territory; and, at any rate, in 1854 their independence, which had been persistently fought for, and nobly won, was acknowledged by the British Government as regards the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Surely in South Africa there was room for the Englishman and the Boer, and if it had not been for the dream of Imperialism, which seems to dominate the brain of our colonial rulers, the two nations might have lived and flourished side by side. The Boer, at any rate, has made himself at home on the soil. It agrees with him physically. In the Orange State and the Transvaal he made good roads, and built churches and schools and gaols, and turned the wilderness into a fruitful field. In reply to the English who pleaded for annexation, he said, “We fled from you years ago; leave us in peace. We shall pay our debts early enough; your presence can but tend to increase them, and to drive us through fresh wanderings, through new years of bloodshed and misery, to seek homes whither you will no longer follow us. We conquered and peopled Natal; you reaped the fruits of that conquest. What have you done for that colony? Do you seek to do with our Transvaal as you have done with it, to make our land a place of abomination, defiled with female slavery, reeking with paganism, and likely, as Natal is, only too soon to be red with blood?”

“The Transvaal,” wrote one who knew South Africa well—the late Mr. Thomas Baines—“will yet command the admiration of the world for the perseverance, the primitive manliness and hardihood of its pioneers.” As a proof of advancing prosperity, when he was there in 1860 its one-pound notes had risen in value till four were taken for a sovereign, and several hundred pounds’ worth p. 9 had been called in and publicly burnt upon the market-place. It is a proof of the simplicity of the people that on that occasion the Boers and Doppers (adult Baptists) crowded wrathfully around, and bitterly commented on the wastefulness of their Government in wickedly destroying so much of the money of their Republic; while others, of more advanced views, discussed the means of raising them still further in value, and sagely remarked that because they had been printed in Holland the English would not take them, but that if others were printed in London they would certainly be as good as a Bank of England note. In the Volksraad (House of Commons) now and then some amusing scenes occurred. The progressive party wanted, one day, to pass some measure for the opening and improvement of the country, when the opponents, finding themselves in a minority, thought to put the drag on by bringing forward an old law that all members should be attired in black cloth suits and white neckerchiefs. This had the immediate effect of disqualifying so many that the business of the House could not be legally conducted; but an English member who lived next door, slipped out, donned his Sunday best, with a collar and tie worthy of a Christy Minstrel, and resumed his sitting with an army that completely dismayed the anti-progressionists. The latest authority, Sir Arthur Cunynghame, testifies to this simplicity as still the characteristic of the Dutch. “Some little time before our arrival,” he writes, “a German conjurer had visited this distant little village, when the Doppers were so alarmed at his tricks that they left the room in which he was exhibiting, and, assembling in prayer, entreated to be relieved of the devil who had come amongst them.” He tells the story of a Jew, who in dealing with a Boer had made a miscalculation, which the Boer pointed out, appealing to his ready-reckoner. Not in the least taken aback, the Israelite replied, “Oh, this is a ready-reckoner of last year!” and the poor Boer was done. A further illustration of their simplicity is to be found in the fact that when they trekked from the Cape they fancied that they were on their way to Egypt, and, having reached in the Transvaal a considerable river which falls into the Limpopo, thought they were there, and called it the Nyl—a name which it still retains. In accordance with their serious teaching, they gave Scriptural names to their settlements and villages; and if they were severe on the natives, and ruled them with a rod of iron, did not the Jews act in a similar manner to the Hivites and the Hittites, and did not Samuel command Saul to hew Agag in pieces before the Lord?

It is to be feared that the Boers have never had justice done to them by our rulers. We had no claim on them. It was to escape British rule that they, with their wives and children, their p. 10 men-servants and maid-servants, their oxen, and their sheep, their horses and their asses, went forth into the wilderness. Even Mr. Trollope admits that when they took possession of Natal, “there was hardly a native to be seen, the country having been desolated by the King of the Zulus. It was the very place for the Dutch, fertile without interference, and with space for every one.” There they would have settled, as did the Pilgrim Fathers on the other side of the Atlantic, and built up a flourishing State, but we followed them, and drove them away. If they had been allowed to remain, the English Government and the English people would have been saved a good deal of trouble. At any rate, we should never have heard of the native difficulty in Natal—the difficulty which keeps away the emigration required to develop the resources of a country happily situated in many respects; the difficulty which must ever be felt by a handful of English in the presence of a horde of polygamous and untutored savages who will not work, and who, alas! are not ashamed to beg. Natal, had the Dutch been left peaceably in possession of it, would have been by this time the home of a God-fearing, civilised community, instead of swarming with Pagans who have fled there from the cruelties of their native kings, and who learn to treat their protectors with insolent contempt. In Natal, the English shopkeeper has to speak to his customers in their own language. Where the Boers hold sway it is otherwise. In the Dutch parts of the Cape Colony, Captain Aylward writes: “The coloured people are tame, submissive, and industrious, speaking the language of their instructors and natural masters. As I proceeded further on my journey through the Transvaal,” continues the same writer, “I saw in various directions gardens, fruitful orchards, and small, square houses in the possession of blacks, who were living in a condition of ordinary propriety, having abandoned polygamy and other horrid customs resulting from it. So great an improvement I had not noticed during any part of my previous residence in Natal.” It is a pity that we have made the Boers our enemies; and the worst of it is, in their determination not to be English the women, according to Captain Aylward, have been a wonderful aid to the men. They have suffered for that spirit. It has called them from the homesteads built by their fathers, the rich lands where the grapes clustered and the sheep fattened, and the fields were white for the harvest. In 1841 Major Charteris wrote: “The spirit of dislike to English rule was remarkably dominant among the women. Many of those who had formerly lived in affluence but were now in comparative want, and subject to all the inconveniences accompanying the insecure state in which they were existing, having lost, moreover, their husbands and brothers by the savage, still rejected with p. 11 scorn the idea of returning to the colony. If any of the men began to drop or lose courage they urged them on to fresh exertions, and kept alive the spirit of resistance within them.” Sir Arthur Cunynghame has nothing but praise for the Boers. On his way to the Diamond Fields he stopped at Hanover, which, he says, “has a grand appearance, the Dutch minister’s house, standing in the centre, being quite a palace. It was built by the subscriptions of his parishioners. The honours which the Dutch lavish on the ministry are worthy of remark.” Equally worthy of remark is their hospitality and their piety. The farmer gives his guest the best entertainment he can provide, and “before the family retires to rest the large Bible is opened and the chapter appropriate to the day is read.” On another occasion, Sir Arthur’s party encamp near the residence of a rich Dutch farmer, who refused admission to his house and would not even sell them an egg; yet he records the fact that, “late in the evening the sounds of the Evening Hymn floated over the plain, the nasal twang of the patriarch being distinctly heard leading the choir, while female voices, with their plaintive notes, chimed in. It is pleasant,” adds Sir Arthur, “to hear in these lone lands such evidence of a religions sentiment pervading the community, and it is an assurance that the people are contented and happy.” Sir Arthur writes:—“There are no finer young men in the world than the young Dutch Boers, who are generally of immense height and size, and very hardy. Their life is spent in the open air by day, and frequently at night they sleep on the veldt, with no tent or covering. Men more fit for the Grenadier Guards, as to personal appearance, could not be found. Some of them are plucky. A Boer had part of his hand blown off by the bursting of his gun. Having no doctor near, he directed his son to bring his hammer and chisel, and shape off his fingers.” As an Irishman, Captain Aylward is enthusiastic as regards the personal charms of the ladies. Many of the elder ones even, he admits, are not uncomely, and in the wild neighbourhood of Lydenberg itself, he tells us, are to be seen some bearing traces of beauty of no ordinary character, whose lives, he says, somewhat unnecessarily, are useful, adorning, and cheering the homes of their husbands and children. These people are somewhat unlettered, and very phlegmatic. “They do not wish,” writes Sir Arthur Cunynghame, “to move ten miles from their own door, nor to see one who comes from ten miles beyond it.” Their moral discipline also seems somewhat severe. “In the little fort,” writes Captain Aylward, “was an English storekeeper, named Glynn, whose daughters had a piano, on which they would occasionally play dance and other profane music. This was a source of great annoyance to their pious neighbours, who, in many respects, p. 12 resembled our early Puritans. It was requested that the piano should be silenced, as the music might tempt the anger of Heaven if persisted in during a time of war and trial. If a girl in the laager were frivolous or light in her conduct, she was liable to be arrested, and brought for trial before the Fathers of the Church, from whom she might receive a severe caution, or even the punishment of removal.” At Lydenberg, at the time of Sir Arthur’s visit, an altercation had taken place on the unrighteousness of dancing, for which a party was tried by the Synod; but an appeal was made to the Court, and this appeal formed an important epoch in the history of the town. To show how primitive these Boers are, let us take the following story:—A schoolmaster was lately appointed in Zoutspanberg. One of his earliest lessons was to teach the children that the world turned upon its own axis. He also endeavoured to make them understand the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. The children went home, and were impertinent to their parents, and told them that the earth went round the sun. The elders of the district met, and consulted regarding these new doctrines, and finally agreed to refer the subject to the minister, who requested the schoolmaster to explain. The schoolmaster said, “I teach them nothing but the movements of the heavenly bodies, and that the earth revolves round the sun.” The minister answered, “Well, this may be true, no doubt, and what the earth does in Holland; but it would be more convenient at present if in the Zoutspanberg you would allow the sun still to go round the earth for a few years longer. We do not like sudden changes in such matters.” The schoolmaster took the hint, and the sun continued to go round the earth as usual. The power of the minister of a parish is very great. A great deal depends upon him for the improvement and well-being of the town. Many a time it was said to Sir Arthur, when he observed that a town was flourishing, “Yes, we are fortunate in our minister;” and when it was falling back it was, “Ah! all will alter when we get rid of our present minister.”

It is to the credit of these people that they have a consistent native policy. No faith is to be held with Rome. “Delenda est Carthago” is their motto. They leave the natives to quarrel among themselves, while our English policy has been to play off one petty savage chief against another, and to arm and strengthen the natives with whom we are ultimately to fight. The natives see through this, and argue, as Sir Arthur Cunynghame testifies, that the English fear them, else why, they ask, do they give them such high wages? or why do the Government allow them to buy arms? It is some such feeling that has urged on Cetewayo into his present hostile attitude. He considered that we were his p. 13 allies against the Boers, and thought we annexed the Transvaal for him and his savage followers. Up to the annexation he and the English were on friendly terms. It seems that the Boers are reluctant to fight for English rule, and some of the colonial papers hint that they are a danger and a menace. No wonder, as we have always sacrificed them to the natives. The Free States newspaper complains that “our British neighbours have established at the Diamond Fields free trade in guns and ammunition, in spite of all treaties with the Republic, and even in spite of their own professed policy in the Cape Colony. Griqualand West permits the supply of guns and ammunition to the natives—Zulus and Basutos—without hindrance, whilst Earl Carnarvon requests all South Africa to meet in a friendly conference, because of the native question and Zulu difficulty. British traders supply Her Majesty’s enemies, and our enemies too, with guns and ammunition to any extent, in order that these enemies may be better prepared to fight us when the next struggle may commence; and, worst of all, British commerce, represented by colonial shopkeepers and merchants, who, to fill their own pockets, would not for a moment hesitate to bring ruin on the colonial farmers and Republican Boers, cry out that it is preposterous to stop the trade in guns.” Assuredly, the Boers may well complain of the Imperial policy in South Africa. There is little to be said for our dealings with them after they had removed out of our rule. That we had no right to annex the Diamond Fields, the sum we offered in compensation may be considered as fair evidence; and the annexation of the Transvaal, besides being a crime, was a blunder for which we are now paying dearly in person and in purse. It has bean shown that the cry for annexation raised was merely “an ignorant expression of the dissatisfaction of a mean and contemptible minority”—a set of greedy speculators and disreputable office-seekers, who grossly deceived the English officials, who were not naturally averse to the power and prestige a new command would give them. The Republic was not insolvent, nor was it unable to hold its own. In the war with the Basutos, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Trollope, the Burghers were everywhere victorious, nor was it stained with slavery, as, if so, when Sir Theophilus Shepstone annexed it, we should have heard of a wholesale emancipation; nor was the step taken by the will of the people. The only argument for the step was that we were obliged to take it in order to prevent our own house catching fire, and the result has been the conflagration we were so anxious to avoid. Sir Theophilus Shepstone annexed the Transvaal, and our house caught fire in the Cape Colony, and in Griqualand West, and Secocoeni broke out; and, lastly, we have the tragedy of Isandula. We shall never be safe till we have the p. 14 Transvaal, argued Sir Theophilus Shepstone and his friends. Now, argue the latter, that we have the Transvaal, we are bound to go to war. This reasoning was irresistible to Lord Chelmsford, who, in a despatch dated September last, says, “So long as Natal and the Transvaal had separate interests, the policy of the chief of the Zulu nation was to play off the former against the latter. . . . With the annexation of the Transvaal this state of things virtually came to an end.”

Ex uno disce omnes . One example will suffice of the way in which that theory of dominion universal, from, the Cape to the Zambesi, which appears to dominate over the official Englishman, when he has anything to do with Africa, acts in a mischievous manner, may be seen in the case of Griqualand East, formerly called No Man’s Land, which was some years since a sort of neutral territory. In time the Griquas, or bastards, settled there. They were an industrious people, and far more advanced in civilisation than any other native tribe. They had large flocks of cattle and sheep, and were wealthy, with good furniture and houses, and prospered under the rule of their President, Adam Kok. Many new buildings, such as churches and schools, were being erected when Sir Arthur Cunynghame visited them, and many new stores put up. He writes: “In the afternoon we attended the native service carried on in the Dutch language. It was impossible for me to follow it; in fact, the discovery that the sermon related to the Prodigal Son formed the limit of my knowledge of what was going on. The congregation appeared attentive, and the clergyman in earnest.” Not long after the visit, it was decided by the British that they should annex the country, and Adam Kok was pensioned off with a thousand a year, which he did not, however, long enjoy, as he was soon killed by a carriage accident. At a meeting of the people on the subject, Captain Adam Kok complained, as, indeed, he had every reason to do, of the hasty and arbitrary manner in which Government were assuming authority in his country. They had their own cannon, fire-arms, and ammunition, bought with their own money, and after being left for thirteen years entirely to their own resources, without any preliminary notice he said, the Cape Government stepped coolly in and took possession of them and their property. When the Government laid out the Kat River Settlement of Hottentots, they gave the settlers seed, corn, ploughs, and various other things to help them. But the Griquas were not so treated. They had to do everything for themselves, and we were bound to regard them not as enemies to be put down, but as friendly allies to be encouraged and preserved.

How long is this system to be pursued? The Transvaal is p. 15 getting into a worse state every day. It has vast resources which cannot be developed. It is importing flour, when it might be a great corn-producing country. It has no manufactures, and its exports are few. Captain Aylward writes: “The Boer party complain bitterly of the annexation. They say our liberties have been unnecessarily taken from us, and our country annexed, not only against the will of the majority, but in utter defiance of Lord Carnarvon’s instructions, which state that no such proclamation shall be issued by you (Sir Theophilus Shepstone), unless you shall be certain that the inhabitants, or a sufficient number of them, or the Legislature, desire to become our subjects.” The Boers also object to the annexation, because they believe that the arguments put forward by Sir Theophilus Shepstone are not borne out by facts, and they are still more angry because they believe the annexation was brought about by false pretences, accompanied and strengthened by attacks made upon their honour and character by a party Press interested in their destruction. They say further, that the terms of the Annexation Proclamation have not been adhered to, and this party, undoubtedly the strongest in the country, appeals to England to do them justice and restore to them their country. The railway party who want a connection with the natural outlet of the Transvaal, Delagoa Bay, are discontented, and so are the very men who were the first to applaud annexation. As it is, it seems, the Transvaal must end either in anarchy or martial law, and will be a heavy burden on the British taxpayer for many years to come. Mr. Trollops himself admits that it is not easy to justify what we have done in the Transvaal. “If there be,” he writes, “any laws of right and wrong, by which nations should govern themselves in their dealings with other nations, it is hard to find the law in conformity with which that act was done.” And Mr. Trollope is right. Undoubtedly it was an act of injustice of which we have not yet seen the bitter end. There is little chance of that injustice being undone. The Dutch are poor and far away. It is the old, old story of the wolf and the lamb over again. We have made so little of South Africa, we might leave the Boers alone. All that we can say against them is that when it was the fashion for West Indian planters to maltreat their slaves, they often did the same.

The Boers are becoming more discontented, as well they may, and there is no sign of this discontent ceasing. In the beginning of February they held a large meeting at Wonderfontein to receive the report of the visit of the deputation, Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, to Europe. The latter is reported to have said:—“My brethren and fellow-countrymen,—I am very glad to see you all spared by God in this our beloved country. I wish p. 16 and hope the best, also, with regard to your families. You have deputed us on a mission of the utmost importance to yourselves. I know you are awaiting our report with deep anxiety. I know your feelings and your wishes—aye, I share your anxiety, and, therefore, I will not detain you long by words. Know, then, that I cannot report to you so favourably as you had expected that the all-powerful British Empire had acknowledged your rights so that you may, as had been said by Joshua to Caleb, be strong and possess the country which God has given you. No, brethren, England has annexed your country, and will keep it, and I may not mislead you by not telling you that you cannot stop the superior power of England. Therefore, take heed for yourselves, and don’t do anything of which you may repent for ever, and which may plunge yourselves, your families, and others into deeper misery still. Pray to God for wisdom; be prudent, and act wisely. Who knows, God may help us and grant relief. You had sent us to ask back your independence. What we have done for it you already know from the newspapers, and the rest you will learn from the books or pamphlets which we had printed. In how far you will decide that we have done our duty we leave to you. I do not care for myself, but I do for the country, and the people, and where I feel my own shortcomings and weakness, I am satisfied before God and my conscience that I, if I have not obtained what you, what I, and the people have desired, I have done for it what I could. And with this I wish God’s greatest blessing for yourselves and the country.” Other speeches were delivered of a more angry and exciting character. It was intimated that we got our Empire by robbery. Mr. W. Pretorious said the High Commissioner promised much, but all he wanted was to get back his independence. Said another speaker, amidst enthusiastic cheers, England might annex and oppress them, but it could never give them an English heart. Some resolutions were moved, of which the following was one:—“The committee, supported by the people, cannot be satisfied with the reply of the English Minister, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and resolve to continue to protest against the injustice committed, and, further, to devise ways and means with the people for attaining their object.” After the meeting, some people having torn to pieces the printed copies of Sir Bartle Frere’s letter, Mr. Joubert strongly condemned the stupid proceedings, and requested the people to act wisely and with judgment. On the Sunday religious services were held, and on Monday a further meeting took place. Ultimately it was resolved, “That the committee, having learned the opinion of the people expressed in their memorials, and the expressed wish of the people not to submit to British supremacy, but to abide by the protest of April 11, 1877, proposes to the committee p. 17 a deputation to acquaint Sir Bartle Frere therewith, and at the same time to assure His Excellency of their full co-operation for the advancement of the whole of South Africa, provided the annexation be rescinded.” Clearly, when we have settled with Cetewayo, we shall have a little trouble with the free people of the Transvaal. According to the Natal Mercury , we had better leave them alone.

The following, says the Natal Witness , is a translation of the oath of mutual allegiance taken by a great number of respectable Transvaal Boers at the Wonderfontein meeting. It will strike most people that this oath is the oath of men who are to be respected. It will also strike them that such men are likely to secure the sympathy of the great bulk of the English nation:—“In the presence of Almighty God, the Searcher of hearts, and praying for His gracious assistance and mercy, we, burghers of the South African Republic, have solemnly agreed, for us and for our children, to unite in a holy covenant, which we confirm with a solemn oath. It is now forty years ago since our fathers left the Cape Colony to become a free and independent people. These forty years were forty years of sorrow and suffering. We have founded Natal, the Orange Free State, and the South African Republic, and three times has the English Government trampled on our liberty. And our flag, baptized with the blood and tears of our fathers, has been pulled down. As by a thief in the night has our free Republic been stolen from us. We cannot suffer this and we may not. It is the will of God that the unity of our fathers and the love to our children should oblige us to deliver unto our children, unblemished, the heritage of our fathers. It is for this reason that we here unite, and give each other the hand as men and brethren, solemnly promising to be faithful to our country and people, and looking unto God, to work together unto death for the restoration of the liberty of our Republic. So truly help us, God Almighty.”

Till Sir Bartle Frere appeared upon the scene at the Cape men ridiculed the idea of another Kaffir war. Now all is changed. The following is an extract from a letter, dated February 12, received by a gentleman in London from a well-known merchant at the Cape:—“Who is responsible for the fearful loss of life which has taken place in Zululand? This is now the question of all questions; but we fear that it will drop out of sight, as the iniquitous proceedings perpetrated here during the late so-called war have done. The Zulus will, of course, be crushed, as ‘Might is Right’ seems now to be England’s motto. Sir Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmsford must answer for the part they have played, and for the consequences of the tragedy they have caused. Never was there a greater mistake than the Frere-Sprigg native policy. We have not right on our side, and we have not the force to carry it p. 18 out, even if we had. We have made enemies of the loyal Gaikas, of the Basutos, of the Fingoes, of the Zulus, and of every other tribe in South Africa, by our harsh and unjust treatment of them. The appointment of Sir Bartle Frere as Governor, and of Mr. Sprigg and his party to power, are the greatest misfortunes which have befallen this country for fifty years.”

The South African correspondent of the Daily News , writing from Maritzburg, March 2, says:—“It is now only too evident to every one that Sir Bartle Frere’s policy has been most mischievous in its effects upon South African interests. More has been done since he landed at Capetown, two years ago, to produce discord and unsettlement than, it is to be feared, can be undone for many years to come. Friendly tribes have been exasperated; colonists have been ridden over rough-shod, and now it would seem that the High Commissioner is bent on bringing about the last and final evil, by engaging in a war of conquest with the Transvaal Boers. There is a strong and increasing feeling throughout South Africa that the annexation of the Transvaal must be reversed. When that act took place it met with very wide approval, for two reasons—first, because it was believed that the majority of the Boers were consenting parties; and next, because it was believed that the act might tend to bring the two great European nationalities closer together. The return of the second Transvaal deputation has brought to light the fact that the majority of the Boers were by no means consenting parties. They complain, too, and justly, that not one of the promises made at the time of the annexation has been fulfilled. If the acts of the annexation were repealed, and time allowed for the bitter feelings engendered by it to subside, there is little doubt that the Boers would be found willing to come into some sort of confederation with the other South African States, and there can be no doubt that if the Transvaal came in willingly the Free State, whose capital, Bloemfontein, is regarded by many as the natural capital of South Africa, would come in also.”

What is to be the end of our system of annexation in South Africa? Our Consuls far away from the healthy criticism of the English Press, and possibly better trained in ancient than modern history, dream imperial dreams, and the public at home applauds when a magnificent success crowns their work. In the case of Sir Bartle Frere there has been a failure, and he will have to pay the penalty; while demagogues who, like the Irishman who when landed in America, and asked for his vote for the opposition candidate, immediately promised it, remarking he was “again all Government,” see in the failure the hand of Earl Beaconsfield, and hold him up to scorn and contempt. It is clear what has p. 19 been done at the Cape is only in accordance with the whole past of colonial rule, not merely there, but in every quarter of the globe. We could not leave the Boers alone, who stood as buffers between us and the surrounding savages. We must follow them over desert and plain and swamp and river and rock and bush. The colonist reaped, at any rate, a benefit from such a policy, for he made profitable contracts for his waggons and horses, and there was a refreshing stream of English gold, which otherwise would have been dried up. The Book of Nature might say, Leave the Boers and the savages alone; but to a highly-cultured people the Book of Nature is a blank, and the passions and prejudices, and fears and hopes, of the passing hour are the only considerations by which the public and the puppets it places in office are moved. Some of us still talk of the New Testament; but he who were to quote it, even after Mr. Speaker had said the prayers, in our High Court of Parliament, as bearing in any way on national policy, would be as much laughed at as Dr. Kenealy or Major O’Gorman. Meanwhile time will solve the problem—the storm will blow over. The mob and the pictorial papers will glorify the returning heroes who have crushed a savage who was mad enough to defy on his own behalf and on that of his people the British power, and the British public will have to pay the bill—not, unfortunately, the hard-working, over-taxed working man; he is a myth, as much so as a mermaid or a griffin; but that large middle-class, on whom the tax-gatherer instinctively preys; who have been shorn so often that it has become to them a second nature; who have been the mainstay of the country, but who are fast becoming, under the weight of Imperial taxation for Imperial schemes, an extinct race.

p. 20 OUR KAFFIR WARS.

Writing last year, Captain Aylward, in his work on the Transvaal, indicated that South Africa would be a burning question for the British taxpayer in the summer of 1879. That period of time has not yet arrived, but already the question has come home to the aggrieved individual aforesaid in an unpleasantly novel and alarming manner. In spite of instructions from home, Sir Bartle Frere has initiated an aggressive war on the Zulu nation which already represents an expenditure of a million and a half, and which, before it is fought out to the bitter end, will occasion the expenditure of a much larger sum. In a time of unexampled commercial distress, when thousands of homes have been made desolate; when tender and delicate women who have been nursed in luxury and comfort have been deprived of their daily bread; when grey-haired old men have found themselves after the struggle of a life made paupers; when the most the majority of us can do is to meet the inevitable expenditure of the passing day—we are committed, in accordance with the Imperial instincts of officials in high quarters, to a warlike policy of which none can tell the result or calculate the cost. This, alas! is no new thing where our South African colonies are concerned. A war is begun by a blundering ruler, or in accordance with the wishes of interested parties, and the ignorant public at home has to pay the bill. Sir Arthur Cunynghame, in his last work, expresses the hope that for the Kaffir wars which were in existence when he was at the Cape the British taxpayer would not have to pay; nevertheless, in the Budget £344,000 are put down for the Transkei war. Mr. Trollope goes a step further, and plainly shows that the colonist, whether as farmer or labourer or trader, is much better off than men of the same class at home, and that it is unjust we should be taxed by an immense military expenditure for their benefit alone. Speaking of the Transvaal, he adds, “Great as is the parliamentary strength of the present Ministry, Parliament would hardly endure the idea of paying permanently for the stability and security of a Dutch population out of the British pocket.” And yet in Natal the Daily News correspondent estimates that our war with Cetewayo will cost twelve millions. It is to be questioned whether we as a people have been pecuniarly benefited by South African colonies. They offer no such advantages as a field of emigration as New Zealand or Canada or Australia. The emigrant is afraid of a Kaffir war, and he goes elsewhere. If the colonists had to pay for their own wars, we should p. 21 have had fewer of them, and by this time they would have been in a much more flourishing condition. Nor should we have been trembling, as we have of late, lest any morning we might hear the Zulu army had marched into Natal and had not left a white man alive to tell the tale of the terrible tragedy that ensued. I maintain there would be no end to these Kaffir scares and Kaffir wars so long as the men and money of the mother country are so employed, and so long as the colonial governors are allowed to rush into war. If a man goes to live in South Africa he should do so with the feeling that he runs a certain risk, and that knowledge would make him live on good terms with the natives. High interest, as the late Duke of Wellington is reported to have said, means bad security. In a similar manner, we may say, cheap land means bad security; and the farmer who buys the freehold of his farm in Natal for less than the rent he has to pay for it at home cannot expect to be as secure in purse or person as a farmer in the Weald of Kent. In 1811 was our first Kaffir war. It was waged on our part in the most cruel manner—no quarter was given by the white man—no prisoners taken—all were slaughtered till the Kaffirs were driven backwards and eastwards across the Great Fish River. In 1819 we had another fight, as was to be expected. Wars lead to wars. What the sword wins the sword only can retain. Lord Charles Somerset, who had Imperial ideas of the most pronounced character, took it into his head to elect Gaika as the sole head of Kaffirland, when in reality the paramount chief was Hintza. In 1818, by seizing the wife of one of the latter’s chief councillors, and other aggressive acts, Gaika drew upon himself the enmity of his superior, and was defeated in a fierce battle with great slaughter. After the defeat Gaika appealed to the British Government to assist him, not in bringing about a reconciliation, but in making war on his enemies. Accordingly a powerful force of regular troops and armed colonists, to the number of 3,352 men, under Colonel Brereton, was despatched to fight on behalf of this wretched savage. The reward of their valour consisted in more than 30,000 head of cattle, of which 21,000 of the finest were given to the colonists and the rest to Gaika. As a natural consequence, the plundered tribes, rendered desperate by famine, crossed the Fish River in great numbers, drove in the small military posts, and compelled the border colonists to abandon their dwellings. Additional troops were sent to the frontier, and a plan was formed for the re-invasion of Kaffirland. But before that plan was carried out, the Kaffirs, to the number of 9,000, led by Makanna, attacked Grahamstown, and would have taken it had not the leader, in accordance with the custom of the heroes of his country, sent a message overnight to inform Colonel Willshire, the p. 22 British commandant, that he would breakfast with him next morning. This gave the British time to prepare, and the result was 1,400 Kaffirs were left dead on the field. After this Colonel Willshire and Landdrost Stockenstrom advanced into the enemy’s country, carrying fire and slaughter everywhere. At length Makanna, to obtain better terms for his people, freely surrendered himself into the hands of the English; but this act had no effect on the latter, who proceeded to drive away the Kaffirs and to annex 3,000 square miles of fertile territory. The Kaffir, of course, became more incensed against us than ever. He saw his lands taken away, and an inferior chief placed, as it were, in power; but for a while, however, we had no regular fighting, only occasional brushes in consequence of cattle stealing, real or pretended. There is a foray recorded in the Cape Government Gazette of 1823 as a very meritorious affair. At daybreak on the 5th, Major Somerset, having collected his force, passed with celerity along a ridge, and at daylight had the satisfaction of pouring into the centre of Makanna’s kraal with a rapidity that at once astonished and completely overset the Kaffirs. A few assegais were thrown, but the attack was made with such vigour that little resistance could be made. As many Kaffirs having been destroyed as it was thought would evince our superiority and power , Major Somerset stopped the slaughter, and secured the cattle to the amount of about 7,000 head.

Strange to say, this mode of impressing the Kaffir with the fact of our superiority and power only made matters worse, and the commissioners of inquiry had to report, in July, 1825, that the annexation had entailed expenses upon the Government and sacrifices upon the people in no degree compensated with the acquirement of the territory which was the object of it. A similar remark may be made at the present time, for, as soon as a colony gets strong enough, its first effort is to fight the mother country with a hostile tariff. It seems then, as now, nothing was easier than to get up a casus belli . Mr. Thomas Baines, the great African traveller, illustrates in an amusing manner what is meant by justice to the natives by some of our colonists. “I was speaking to a friend,” he writes, “respecting the new discoveries, and we both agreed that it would be wrong to make war upon the natives and take the gold-fields away from them.” “But,” said my friend, “I would work with foresight. I would send cattle farmers to graze their herds near the borders, and the Kaffirs would be sure to steal them; but, if not, the owner could come away, and he could even withdraw his herdsmen and let them run night and day, then the Kaffirs could not resist the temptation. We could go in and claim the stolen cattle, and, if the Kaffirs resisted and made war, of course they would lose their country.”

p. 23 Our next Kaffir war was, as all our Kaffir wars were, discreditable to ourselves. The war was not only, writes Mr. Trollope, bloody, but ruinous to thousands. The cattle were of course destroyed, so that no one was enriched. Of the ill blood then engendered the effects still remain. Three hundred thousand pounds were spent by the British. But at last the Kaffirs were supposed to have been conquered, and Sir Benjamin D’Urban triumphant. Lord Glenelg himself, however, declared that the Kaffirs had “ample justification.” It seems to an impartial observer that the war was entirely brought about by the English. After his expulsion from the Kat river, Macomo, the son of Gaika, retired to the banks of the Chumie, but so far from instigating his people to plunder the colony, he appears to have done his best to restrain them. On that head we have abundant testimony, but it suited the Colonial Governor to have him and his brother Tyalie removed, and removed they were under really aggravating circumstances. Our own soldiers did their work well, and we have graphic pictures of burning villages, ruined cultivations, and people driven away like wild beasts. The chief was sulky, writes Colonel Wade, and well he might be. Another cause of the war was the frontier system, which constantly led to collisions with the natives. As the Chief Tyalie declared, “Every year a commando comes, every week a patrol comes, every day farmers come and seize our cattle.” It was then the infuriated natives swept over the colony, to be in turn driven back. The murder of the great chief Hintza appears to have been an extraordinarily brutal one. It is stated to me, writes Lord Glenelg, “that Hintza repeatedly cried for mercy, that the Hottentots present granted the boon, and abstained from killing him; that this office was then undertaken by Mr. Southey, and that then the dead body of the fallen chief was basely and inhumanly mutilated.”

Under Sir Peregrine Maitland we had a fourth Kaffir war. Almost his first act was to commit an unpardonable sin in Kaffir eyes—the erection of a fort in their territory. As they said in their own expressive language, the new chief smelt of war, and war soon came. A Kaffir stole an axe; he was sent to Grahamstown to be tried at the circuit court. The chief Tola said that was contrary to the treaty that all such offences were to be tried at Fort Beaufort. The plea was in vain—the man was sent; an attempt was made to rescue him, and a Hottentot policeman was shot. At once the English took the field to avenge the insult in blood.

In 1850 the fifth Kaffir war arose, and the inhabitants of one advanced military village after another were murdered. This went on for nearly two years, but was at last suppressed by dint of hard fighting. It cost Great Britain, wrote Mr. Trollope, upwards of p. 24 two millions of money, with the lives of about four hundred fighting men.

Our Natal territory cost us a little war initiated by Sir George Napier in 1841. At first the war went very much in favour of the Dutch. Then a larger force came, and the Dutch succumbed to numbers. It was not, however, till 1843 that the twenty-four still existing members of the Volksraad declared Her Majesty’s Government to be supreme. In the case of the Orange Free State we had a war which resulted in our beating the Dutch and winning the place, only to relinquish it again. Our rule in Natal led to our little war with King Langalibalele, who had come to live in Natal as king of the Hlubi tribe, who is now living, after a good many lives had been lost, near Capetown at an expense to the Government of £500 a year. In England it was felt that the chief had been unfairly used, the trial was adjudged to have been conducted with over-strained rigour, and the punishment to have been too severe. There would have been no war at all had it not been for the blunders of mischievous go-betweens. And now once more we are at war, and a cry has been raised for the extermination of the whole Zulu race; and when that is over, there will be fresh hordes of hostile natives to be fought, new lands to be annexed, a scientific frontier to be gained, and the colonists will make fortunes out of the millions thus spent. I ask in sorrow, How long is England to be strained and denuded of men and money for these costly wars? Surely it is a reproach alike to the Christianity and statesmanship of our time that we have not yet hit on a more excellent way.

p. 25 A PLEA FOR THE KAFFIR.

At the present moment we are witnessing a sorry spectacle for a Christian nation—that of a whole people hemmed in in one corner of Eastern Africa, waiting to be swept off the face of the earth by the finest soldiers and the most scientific instruments of murder England has at her command. Their crime has been that in defending their native soil from the tread of the foe, they annihilated an English regiment, and for such an act there is no hope of pardon, in this world at least. From every corner of the land, from the pulpit and the Press, from the hut of the peasant and the palace of the prince, from the cad of the music-hall and the statesman of Downing Street, there has risen a cry for revenge; and that we shall take a full and fierce revenge there can be no doubt. Already in England and in Africa the blood-stained demon of war has sown her seed and reaps her harvest; already there have been bitter tears shed over hundreds of fallen heroes in desolated homes, and women wail and children vainly cry for loved ones whose bones now bleach the distant plain of Isandula. And there will be sadder and darker tragedies yet to come if the wild instincts of the people are to be gratified and the Zulu Kaffirs are to be exterminated. They are now represented as savage hordes, whose existence is incompatible with English rule. Let me plead that they are not such as they are represented, and that it is better that we make them friends. Cetewayo, by not crossing the Tugela and sweeping with fire and slaughter through Natal when that colony lay stricken and terrified at his feet, has set us an example of forbearance which it were wise to imitate. If we fail to do so, the blood feud between us and his people can know no end. They in their turn will nurse a spirit of revenge, and the Kaffir wars of the future will be fiercer and more cruel than any we have hitherto known.

There is much in the Kaffirs that should make them friendly with the English people if fairly treated. One well-known writer states that they are keen observers of character, and have great contempt for a man who gets drunk, or who does not keep his word. Kaffirs should be treated with kindness, fairness, and firmness. They have an accurate idea of justice, and appreciate the administration of just legislation, wrote Mr. Wilson, late a resident magistrate in Natal. In their wild state they are innocent, quiet, unoffending, and hospitable, and it is only when they live close to a European town that they acquire the bad p. 26 habits of the white race, and with the cunning instincts natural to them become dangerous to the community. Said another colonist, at a conference recently held at the African section of the Society of Arts, mentally they were equal to white men. Dr. Mann, who has lived twenty-five years in Natal, and who has written a large work on that colony, declares that the Kaffirs had great ability, and, even without education, seemed a much higher race intellectually than the lower class of the agricultural population in England. In fact, he would rather go to a Kaffir for a response to an appeal to his reason than to an English labourer. Twenty years ago, said Mr. Richardes, they brought comparatively nothing, but now they were great customers to the British merchant. As a further proof of how a Zulu Kaffir could rise in the world, Dr. Mann mentions the case of one he knew who could not read, who borrowed on his own credit £500 to buy a sugar mill, and obtained a further loan from the Government to get it to work, and who, in three years, paid off the loan, and became a prosperous manufacturer. It seems a pity to kill off such people—a people by nature intended to be our customers and allies and friends. Much more than this may be said. “Kaffirs seem,” writes Lady Barker, “a very gay and cheerful people, to judge by the laughter and jests I hear from the groups returning to their kraals every day by the road just outside our fence.” A similar testimony was borne by Mr. Robert Richardson in a paper read by him a year or two since at a meeting of the Society of Arts. “The Zulu,” he said, “may not be dignified, but manliness and good temper are written on his cheerful countenance; and he is not only groom and cattle herd, but domestic servant, and performs with alacrity the least honourable service about a house. If Natal lambs don’t skip, as the Surveyor-General once said, at least the Natal servant does, for his errands are done at a trot cutting capers, while he sings with an appearance of great enjoyment in his own music. Brimful of humour, he is essentially a laughing animal, and having few wants or comforts, he rivals Mark Tapley in being jolly under creditable circumstances. All things considered, the Natal Zulu is a better servant than the (Cape) frontier Kaffir.”

There is much that is good in these Kaffirs. A correspondent of the Cape Mercury wrote—“It is said the Kaffir language has no word for gratitude; but, nevertheless, the Kaffirs are not all void of it. A native man in good circumstances lent a brick waggon gratis to convey Mr. Conway and family to the house of his father-in-law, Mr. Conway being at the time very ill. Unfortunately, after his arrival, he died, leaving his wife and family not very well off. The other day the native arrived to take p. 27 home his waggon which he had kindly lent, and found that if he took it he would leave Mrs. Conway without any means to make an independent living. To the astonishment of all present, he said, ‘I don’t forget good deeds done to me by Conway before poverty overhauled him, and to show that I am sincerely sorry for his family I here make you, his widow, a present of my waggon and gear now in your possession to enable you to provide for his children.’ The value of the waggon was £60.”

In contrast with this is the utter indifference displayed by too many colonists as to the welfare of the Kaffirs. “The other day,” says a writer in a Colonial paper called the Independent , “a wheelbarrow tumbled over the Kimberley (Diamond fields) reef on to the head of a Kaffir. His master, with some irritation, inquired of the employer of the careless servant, ‘Do you want to kill my Kaffirs?’ The reply was an indignant query, ‘What about my wheelbarrow? It’s smashed, and your Kaffir isn’t hurt.’”

But enough of this. According to all writers the Kaffir is deeply impressed with a sense of English superiority. Let us now show him our true superiority; that we war not with him, that we desire not his land, that we are as merciful as we are strong. Cetewayo’s young men have washed their spears in blood, and ours have fallen under circumstances which have created an abiding sense of their heroism in every Zulu breast. Have we no wise men among us who can stand between the living and the dead, and calm the natural passions of the hour, and stay the ravages of war? If there be not such, our task is an endless one to fight and conquer, merely to fight and conquer again. The soldier cannot solve the difficulty; he merely postpones it for a time.

Failing to do justice to the Kaffirs we are left to a very undesirable alternative. If we cease to rule by kindness, we must do so by brute force. Contemplating this delightful state of things, the Natal Witness of the 8th of February says:—“Civilisation has become unmistakably aggressive. The result which it was hoped might be gained by the quiet influence of the plough-share and the railway, is now destined to be effected, under the guidance of Sir Bartle Frere, at the point of the bayonet. The great herald of peace, whose feet were to be so beautiful upon the mountains, has become the genius of war. Whether Sir Bartle Frere foresaw this, we are not aware, nor are we aware whether he likes his position. We will not even argue whether he is right or wrong in believing that civilisation must be aggressive. Judging by history, we incline to the opinion that he is right, and if he is right, then the hope of producing the social amalgamation we have referred to was a vain hope altogether. But whether it is a vain hope or not, let us not deceive ourselves about one thing—that it is now extinguished. p. 28 The ship of State has been put about on the other tack, and is at the present moment, it must be owned, making very bad weather of it. Whatever is now done by way of civilising the native population in South Africa must be done by force. We do not necessarily mean such physical force as is employed in a pitched battle. We mean rather this—that the native population must henceforth be ruled by a show of military strength rather than by trust in British justice or regard for commercial advantages. This, we say, may be right; it may in the very nature of things have been unavoidable. But do not let us deceive ourselves about it. The fact is so, and we must make the best of it or the worst. If the Home Government will be content to keep a large military force in South Africa for thirty years to come, and if South Africa can afford to pay for it; or if, failing this, the British taxpayer will be kind enough to pay for the protection of the colonies which will not be worth protecting if he does not pay—if all this comes to pass, then for thirty years South Africa will be a place which, though utterly useless as a field for immigration, a place in which certain classes of people can live. But then will these things be done? Will England be content to keep such a body of troops in South Africa? Can South Africa pay for them? And, if South Africa cannot, will the British public pay? These are questions most seriously affecting our future, and which for the present we leave to be answered by our readers as best they may be able.” Such is a colonial aspect of what is emphatically a colonial question.

We hear in these days so much about the Zulu that we are apt to forget that in South Africa we have any one else to deal with. In fact the coloured people with whom our whites more or less come into contact, are estimated by Mr. Trollope, our best authority on the subject, at 3,000,000, and with the exception of the Korannas, and the Bushmen, who inhabit Namaqualand, a region where only copper is to be found, are a very superior race of men, well-built, with good capabilities, mental and physical. It is to be questioned whether the danger in the recent system of government at the Cape, which places power in the hands of the white colonists alone, is not calculated to create discontent among the numerous and high-spirited people around. It is much to be regretted also, that we have not yet been able to adopt a steady and consistent policy with the native tribes. The great civilising agency of our time is the British trader, and at the Kimberley mines he has set the native to work; but more than that is required if the native is to be elevated and to be taught to take his proper place as a labourer in the great harvests of the world.

If the reader looks at a map of South Africa he will find that it p. 29 is divided, into many districts, some of them of immense extent—hundreds of miles apart, and inhabited by peoples under varying rulers, and with varying interests. The Cape, for instance, has little sympathy with Natal, and the great Namaqualand has little in common with the Transvaal. In the latter country, as is well known, we have a community hostile to English rule, while the Orange Free State, on each side hemmed in by English dominions, maintains a precarious independency of its own. A grand South African confederation is a beautiful idea, but there does not seem much chance of carrying it out just now. Meanwhile we go on annexing all the surrounding country, much to the discontent of the natives themselves.

At present the great difficulty is the native population. According to all accounts, they are in an unsettled and agitated state. Of the original Hottentot we do not hear much. Mr. Trollope believes that the bulk of the population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is Hottentot, who has, however, long given up all idea of independence. The Dutchmen and the Englishmen also, who are to be met with in the East and West alike, are not likely to give much trouble; but as we get further from the Cape, and the white population is sparser, the difficulties increase. It is true there is no chance of a Kaffir scare in that part of Africa bordering on the Atlantic, nor in the Kalakari desert on the North is there any danger to be apprehended; but it is as we get nearer the Indian Ocean, and especially after we have crossed the Kei, and come into Kaffraria proper, that we find ourselves in the presence of a native population, always required to be watched with a careful eye. There dwell the Galekas, who, to the number of 66,000, under Kreli, have only recently been put down. They and the Tembus, and the Pondos, and the Bomvanas, and the Fingos, inhabit all the district till Natal is reached. Amongst some of them a British Resident resides; in all they do pretty much as they like. Of Natal and its 300,000 Kaffirs it is needless to say more here. In the same neighbourhood are the Griquas, but they are bastard races. The Balongas of Thaba ’Ncho, who dwell under the shelter of the Orange Free State, and the Basutos, are a branch of the Becuanas, who inhabit that part of the Kalakari desert bordering on Griqualand and the Transvaal. Of the black African races, the South-Eastern people whom we call Kaffirs and Zulus are, probably, the best. They are not constitutionally cruel; they learn to work readily, and they save property; but even at the Cape, where they will have power at the voting-booth, Mr. Bowker, the late commandant of the Frontier Mounted Police, says—“As a nation, they hate the white man, and look forward to the day when he will be expelled from the country.” Mr. Trollope remarks of the native that he is a p. 30 good-humoured fellow, whether by nature a hostile Kaffir, or submissive Fingo, or friendly Basuto, but, if occasion should arise, he would probably be a rebel. The two names most familiar to the English readers are the Gaikas and Galekas, who have both given us a good deal of trouble. Sandilli with his Gaikas have long been subjected, though they have never been regarded as peaceable as the Fingos and the Basutos. The total population of the region beyond the Kei is stated to be 500,100, of whom, with the small exception of the Griquas, all are Kaffirs.

Our special friends among the natives are the Fingos, a tribe originally driven from Natal by the warrior Chaka, among the Galekas, by whom they were enslaved and regarded as Kaffir dogs. We English took pity on them, released them from slavery, and settled them somewhere near the coast between the great Fish River and the Keishamma, and their old masters, the Galekas. There they were a perpetual eyesore to their former masters. In the first place, they had for their 50,000 souls 2,000 square miles, while that left for the 66,000 Galekas was not more than 1,600 miles. Again, the Fingos have been a money-making people, possessing oxen and waggons, and gradually rising in the world. For a time, as was to be expected, mischief between the two tribes was brewing, and in 1877 a drunken row precipitated the two into war. We rushed into the war to defend the Fingos, and Kreli, who had no desire for a struggle with the English, was beaten, and his country annexed. The Basutos, who have given up fighting since the days of their great king Moshesh, number about 127,000. In the map they are now included in the Cape Province, but they border the Orange Free State—lying between it and Kaffraria. In 1868 they became, after a wearisome contest with the Dutch, so worried by the latter, that they implored the British to take them as subjects. The Basutos are not Kaffirs, but a branch of the Bechuanas, as are the Balongas, who live so peacefully under the shelter of the Dutch in the Orange Free State. As their land is the very best on the Continent for agricultural purposes, they have bought a great many ploughs, are great growers of corn and wool, and naturally, as is the case with such people, are friends of peace and great lovers of money. At one time they were cannibals. For a long time they were terrible fighters, and that they have become what they are may be quoted as a fine testimony to the civilising influences of the trader. At the same time, it will not be difficult to make enemies of them. One of their chiefs—Morosi—has, taking advantage of the Zulu war, attempted a little emeute on his own hook. We are glad to find, as was to be expected, that he has got the worst of it. In a letter dated March 1, from Alrival North, the writer says:—“I wonder the Government are not more active p. 31 in their movements, and send a proper force to crush him at once, as it is believed here that if Morosi gets the least advantage the whole of Basutoland will be in a blaze. Sprigg will find that the Disarming Act will cost the colony more than he expected, and the Basutos, who are supposed to be loyal, are not at all inclined to give up their arms, and I am sure will not do so without a struggle.” The Gaikas who inhabit the district around Frankfort and King William’s-town have been British subjects for five-and-twenty years; but it is said that our recent policy has also much alienated them. These are the men on whose future relationship depends the fate of South Africa. Under his own chief in the forest, says Mr. Froude, the Kaffir is at least a man trained and disciplined; under European authority he might become as fine a specimen of manhood as an Irish or English policeman. It is to our shame that we have left him almost entirely to himself, and that even our missionaries have done little more than teach him to sing hymns. Lovedale is, however, an important testimony to the worth of missionary enterprise when it takes an industrious turn. There carpentering, waggon-making, blacksmithing, printing, book-binding, cabinet-making, and farm work are all successfully carried on. At King William’s-town young native men, trained at Lovedale, may be found employed as writers in attorneys’ offices, steadily performing their work, and with satisfaction to their employers. At Edendale the Rev. James Allison commenced a still greater work. He bought a block of land near Maritsburgh, and divided it into sections suitable to humble purchasers. These purchasers were natives; his conditions were payment for these lands by instalments, and the complete surrender of polygamy. The people are described as industrious and prosperous, they subscribe to build their own chapels, and when their numbers increase beyond what the land will fairly support, they swarm out and purchase land elsewhere. 8,000 acres are thus planted, with 2,000 inhabitants. If we are to believe the Rev. Mr. Carlyle, formerly the Presbyterian chaplain at Natal, nowhere has the missionary been more successful than in South Africa.

p. 32 DR. BARNARDO’S
HOMES FOR DESTITUTE CHILDREN.

In the East of London, situated in three parishes, and surrounded by a dense population, are the various Institutions comprehended under the name of the East-End Juvenile Mission . These include the Refuges for Destitute and Neglected Children usually called after their founder, “Dr. Barnardo’s Homes.”

The East-End Juvenile Mission was for many years under the sole direction of its founder, but during the past few months a Committee has undertaken, in conjunction with him, its financial control and general administration.

As very few who have heard of the Homes can have any adequate idea of the great variety of work comprehended by this Mission, or of its weighty claims upon the contributions of the benevolent, we may be permitted to briefly state its more important branches.

1. The old building known as the Home for Working and Destitute Lads , in Stepney Causeway, contains at present about 260 boys; whilst a new building is being reared in the same locality, and when finished the whole will accommodate 400 otherwise homeless or orphan boys.

2. Destitute Orphan or Neglected Girls are also cared for by this Mission, and are trained upon the family system , which is, in many respects, preferable to the old method of massing together large numbers of female children in one great Institution. In the Village Home at Ilford there are now twenty-four little Cottages, each detached from its neighbours, and superintended by a Christian woman specially selected for the performance of her important duties. These Cottages are intended to contain respectively from fifteen to twenty little orphan or destitute girls, who are being trained therein for domestic service. When the Village is completed and fully occupied there will be thirty Cottages, calculated to contain about 600 such children.

3. An Infirmary for Sick Children , containing thirty beds, has also been opened in Stepney Causeway, and is worked in connection with the other Institutions.

4. A most important and practical Temperance work has also been established and carried on by this Mission. The first Coffee Palace in the Metropolis, the “Edinburgh Castle,” was founded by Dr. Barnardo in Limehouse, in February, 1873. The success which attended it and its fellow, the “Dublin Castle,” situated in Mile-end, has, in a large measure, led to the establishment of other Institutions of a similar character.

5. The Free Ragged Schools of the Mission contained every Sunday about 1,700 children, gathered from the poorest streets of Limehouse, whilst two Large Mission Halls , situated in the midst of the adult population, and seating 2,500 persons, are on Sunday crowded by the working classes, who throng to hear in them earnest evangelical addresses. These varied religious and temperance efforts, among adults , as well as the educational and refuge work among destitute children , need a considerable sum of money for their support.

During the past year the pressing needs of these Institutions, owing to extraordinary expenses in building, were only met by obtaining from the bankers an advance of £6,000. The Committee are now most anxious to repay that sum, and with this object appeal to the benevolently disposed for assistance to remove from these valuable Institutions the burden of debt under which they are labouring for the first time since their establishment in 1867.

Contributions in response to this appeal may be sent to the Bankers of the Institution, Messrs. Dimsdale, Fowler, and Co., 50, Cornhill; or the London and South-Western Bank, Bow Branch; and will be gratefully acknowledged by the Honorary Director, Dr. Barnardo, at the Office of the Institution, 18, Stepney Causeway, E.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK IMPERIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org . If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate .

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org .

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Imperialism in South Africa

IMPERIALISM
IN
SOUTH AFRICA.

p. 5 IMPERIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA.

ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL.

p. 20 OUR KAFFIR WARS.

p. 25 A PLEA FOR THE KAFFIR.

p. 32 DR. BARNARDO’S
HOMES FOR DESTITUTE CHILDREN.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Imperialism in South Africa

IMPERIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA.

p. 5 IMPERIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA.

ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL.

p. 20 OUR KAFFIR WARS.

p. 25 A PLEA FOR THE KAFFIR.

p. 32 DR. BARNARDO’S HOMES FOR DESTITUTE CHILDREN.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

IMPERIALISM
IN
SOUTH AFRICA.

p. 32 DR. BARNARDO’S
HOMES FOR DESTITUTE CHILDREN.