I cannot conclude this chapter better than by drawing attention to a charming specimen of the correspondence between the Boer leaders and their friend Mr. Courtney. The letter in question, which is dated 26th June, purports to be written by Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, but it is obvious that it owes its origin to some member or members of the Dutch party at the Cape, from whence, indeed, it is written. This is rendered evident both by its general style, and also by the use of such terms as “Satrap,” and by references to Napoleon III. and Cayenne, about whom Messrs. Kruger and Joubert know no more than they do of Peru and the Incas.
After alluding to former letters, the writers blow a blast of triumph over the downfall of the Conservative Government, and then make a savage attack on the reputation of Sir Bartle Frere. The “stubborn Satrap” is throughout described as a liar, and every bad motive imputed to him. Really, the fact that Mr. Courtney should encourage such epistles as this is enough to give colour to the boast made by some of the leading Boers, after the war, that they had been encouraged to rebel by a member of the British Government.
At the end of this letter, and on the same page of the Blue Book, is printed the telegram recalling Sir Bartle Frere, dated 1st August 1880. It really reads as though the second document was consequent to the first. One thing is very clear, the feelings of Her Majesty’s new Government towards Sir Bartle Frere differed only in the method of their expression, from those set forth by the Boer leaders in their letter to Mr. Courtney, whilst their object, namely, to be rid of him, was undoubtedly identical with that of the Dutch party in South Africa.
CHAPTER V
THE BOER REBELLION
Accession of Mr. Gladstone to power—His letters to the Boer leaders and the loyals—His refusal to rescind the annexation—The Boers encouraged by prominent members of the Radical party—The Bezuidenhout incident—Despatch of troops to Potchefstroom—Mass meeting of the 8th December 1880—Appointment of the Triumvirate and declaration of the republic—Despatch of Boer proclamation to Sir O. Lanyon—His reply—Outbreak of hostilities at Potchefstroom—Defence of the court-house by Major Clarke—The massacre of the detachment of the 94th under Colonel Anstruther—Dr. Ward—The Boer rejoicings—The Transvaal placed under martial law—Abandonment of their homes by the people of Pretoria—Sir Owen Lanyon’s admirable defence organisation—Second proclamation issued by the Boers—Its complete falsehood—Life at Pretoria during the siege—Murders of natives by the Boers—Loyal conduct of the native chiefs—Difficulty of preventing them from attacking the Boers—Occupation of Lang’s Nek by the Boers—Sir George Colley’s departure to Newcastle—The condition of that town—The attack on Lang’s Nek—Its desperate nature—Effect of victory on the Boers—The battle at the Ingogo—Our defeat—Sufferings of the wounded—Major Essex—Advance of the Boers into Natal—Constant alarms—Expected attack on Newcastle—Its unorganised and indefensible condition—Arrival of the reinforcements and retreat of the Boers to the Nek—Despatch of General Wood to bring up more reinforcements—Majuba Hill—Our disaster, and death of Sir George Colley—Cause of our defeat—A Boer version of the disaster—Sir George Colley’s tactics.
When the Liberal ministry became an accomplished fact instead of a happy possibility, Mr. Gladstone did not find it convenient to adopt the line of policy with reference to the Transvaal, that might have been expected from his utterances whilst leader of the Opposition. On the contrary, he declared in Parliament that the Annexation could not be cancelled, and on the 8th June 1880 we find him, in answer to a Boer petition, written with the object of inducing him to act up to the spirit of his words and rescind the Annexation, writing thus:—“Looking to all circumstances, both of the Transvaal and the rest of South Africa, and to the necessity of preventing a renewal of disorders which might lead to disastrous consequences, not only to the Transvaal, but to the whole of South Africa, our judgment is, that the Queen cannot be advised to relinquish her sovereignty over the Transvaal; but, consistently with the maintenance of that sovereignty, we desire that the white inhabitants of the Transvaal should, without prejudice to the rest of the population, enjoy the fullest liberty to manage their local affairs. We believe that this liberty may be most easily and promptly conceded to the Transvaal as a member of a South African confederation.”
Unless words have lost their signification, this passage certainly means that the Transvaal must remain a British colony, but that England will be prepared to grant it responsible government, more especially if it will consent to a confederation scheme. Mr. Gladstone, however, in a communication dated 1st June 1881, and addressed to the unfortunate Transvaal loyals, for whom he expresses “respect and sympathy,” interprets his meaning thus: “It is stated, as I observe, that a promise was given to me that the Transvaal should never be given back. There is no mention of the terms or date of this promise. If the reference be to my letter, of 8th June 1880, to Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, I do not think the language of that letter justifies the description given. Nor am I sure in what manner or to what degree the fullest liberty to manage their local affairs, which I then said Her Majesty’s Government desired to confer on the white population of the Transvaal, differs from the settlement now about being made in its bearing on the interests of those whom your Committee represents.”
Such twisting of the meaning of words would, in a private person, be called dishonest. It will also occur to most people that Mr. Gladstone might have spared the deeply wronged and loyal subjects of Her Majesty whom he was addressing, the taunt he levels at them in the second paragraph I have quoted. If asked, he would no doubt say that he had not the slightest intention of laughing at them; but when he deliberately tells them that it makes no difference to their interests whether they remain Her Majesty’s subjects under a responsible Government, or become the servants of men who were but lately in arms against them and Her Majesty’s authority, he is either mocking them, or offering an insult to their understandings.