Why
Should They Not Have Their Own Views As To The Future Of South
Africa?
Why should they not endeavour to have one universal flag
and one common speech?
Why should they not win over our colonists,
if they can, and push us into the sea? I see no reason why they
should not. Let them try if they will. And let us try to prevent
them. But let us have an end of talk about British aggression, of
capitalist designs upon the gold fields, of the wrongs of a
pastoral people, and all the other veils which have been used to
cover the issue. Let those who talk about British designs upon the
republics turn their attention for a moment to the evidence which
there is for republican designs upon the colonies. Let them reflect
that in the one system all white men are equal, and that on the
other the minority of one race has persecuted the majority of the
other, and let them consider under which the truest freedom lies,
which stands for universal liberty and which for reaction and
racial hatred. Let them ponder and answer all this before they
determine where their sympathies lie.
Leaving these wider questions of politics, and dismissing for the
time those military considerations which were soon to be of such
vital moment, we may now return to the course of events in the
diplomatic struggle between the Government of the Transvaal and the
Colonial Office. On September 8th, as already narrated, a final
message was sent to Pretoria, which stated the minimum terms which
the British Government could accept as being a fair concession to
her subjects in the Transvaal. A definite answer was demanded, and
the nation waited with sombre patience for the reply.
There were few illusions in this country as to the difficulties of
a Transvaal war. It was clearly seen that little honour and immense
vexation were in store for us. The first Boer war still smarted in
our minds, and we knew the prowess of the indomitable burghers. But
our people, if gloomy, were none the less resolute, for that
national instinct which is beyond the wisdom of statesmen had borne
it in upon them that this was no local quarrel, but one upon which
the whole existence of the empire hung. The cohesion of that empire
was to be tested. Men had emptied their glasses to it in time of
peace. Was it a meaningless pouring of wine, or were they ready to
pour their hearts' blood also in time of war? Had we really founded
a series of disconnected nations, with no common sentiment or
interest, or was the empire an organic whole, as ready to thrill
with one emotion or to harden into one resolve as are the several
States of the Union? That was the question at issue, and much of
the future history of the world was at stake upon the answer.
Already there were indications that the colonies appreciated the
fact that the contention was no affair of the mother country alone,
but that she was upholding the rights of the empire as a whole, and
might fairly look to them to support her in any quarrel which might
arise from it. As early as July 11th, Queensland, the fiery and
semitropical, had offered a contingent of mounted infantry with
machine guns; New Zealand, Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria,
New South Wales, and South Australia followed in the order named.
Canada, with the strong but more deliberate spirit of the north,
was the last to speak, but spoke the more firmly for the delay. Her
citizens were the least concerned of any, for Australians were many
in South Africa but Canadians few. None the less, she cheerfully
took her share of the common burden, and grew the readier and the
cheerier as that burden came to weigh more heavily. From all the
men of many hues who make up the British Empire, from Hindoo
Rajahs, from West African Houssas, from Malay police, from Western
Indians, there came offers of service. But this was to be a white
man's war, and if the British could not work out their own
salvation then it were well that empire should pass from such a
race. The magnificent Indian army of 150,000 soldiers, many of them
seasoned veterans, was for the same reason left untouched. England
has claimed no credit or consideration for such abstention, but an
irresponsible writer may well ask how many of those foreign critics
whose respect for our public morality appears to be as limited as
their knowledge of our principles and history would have advocated
such self denial had their own countries been placed in the same
position.
On September 18th the official reply of the Boer Government to the
message sent from the Cabinet Council was published in London. In
manner it was unbending and unconciliatory; in substance, it was a
complete rejection of all the British demands. It refused to
recommend or propose to the Raad the five years' franchise and the
other measures which had been defined as the minimum which the Home
Government could accept as a fair measure of justice towards the
Uitlanders. The suggestion that the debates of the Raad should be
bilingual, as they have been in the Cape Colony and in Canada, was
absolutely waived aside. The British Government had stated in their
last dispatch that if the reply should be negative or inconclusive
they reserved to themselves the right to 'reconsider the situation
de novo and to formulate their own proposals for a final
settlement.' The reply had been both negative and inconclusive, and
on September 22nd a council met to determine what the next message
should be. It was short and firm, but so planned as not to shut the
door upon peace. Its purport was that the British Government
expressed deep regret at the rejection of the moderate proposals
which had been submitted in their last dispatch, and that now, in
accordance with their promise, they would shortly put forward their
own plans for a settlement.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 22 of 222
Words from 21462 to 22481
of 225456
