Entering the Colony on the eastern section of its northern boundary, it moved from place to place, striking down herds wherever it appeared with a suddenness that hardly seemed possible from the slowness of its march. The Natives of Zululand were the first to feel the blow, but the still more numerous black and white population of Natal, though having greater time to organize resistance, did not suffer less. A fundamental characteristic of human nature showed itself in the complacency with which the disease was viewed whilst at a distance, and alarm and even panic when it actually invaded the Colony. Every precaution which science or quackery could suggest was adopted. Thousands of pounds were spent on a device, only a few weeks later to be displaced by another, even more expensive. Parliament passed one law after another, whose aggregate effect scarcely abated the evil, whilst the inconvenience to Natives through enforcement of regulations amounted, in some instances, to actual provocation. That they were unable to see eye-to-eye with the Veterinary Department or other controlling authority in the restrictions imposed within infected or supposed infected areas was due not to fictitious, but to genuine, belief. However, it was clear from the outset that European cattle were no more immune than their own. If their race suffered, so also did that of the white man. Irritating though the precautions were, the fact remained that Natives' cattle were being swept off wholesale, leaving the people in a greatly impoverished condition.
But there was another matter, and one of long standing, regarded by them as a still greater affliction. To this we must now turn.
Ever since farms were laid off in Natal for European occupation, rents had been collected from the Native tenants. There were many reasons, sentimental as well as arising out of actual necessity, to account for the presence of Natives on such farms. First, there was the kraal, and its family (with numerous old local associations) already in situ when the farm was laid off; secondly, the farmer, who had no tenants, had, by the offer of inducements, obtained them; thirdly, Natives ejected for some reason from adjoining or other lands, who had come to apply for permission "to squat." There was variety, again, when the character of the tenancy is examined. One landlord had, as the basis of his contract, service in lieu of rent; another required certain service with a small rent; another, service for which he paid the market wage, leaving the tenant free for six months of the year, but charged rent; another wanted nothing but the rent. Without going too deeply into this exceedingly complex question, it is sufficient to remark that "service in lieu of rent" was generally demanded by the Dutch farmers, in many ways fairer and more sympathetic to their tenants than other landlords, whilst cash was generally required by British farmers. Where rents were charged, they were felt by many Natives to be burdensome. With a number of tenants on his farm, a landlord, of course, felt that where one man could raise the rent, all must be required to do so, otherwise chaos would result. Rents naturally varied in different parts, some places being more productive than others. The lowest amount was about £1 per hut, whilst the highest was as much as £12. The average, however, stood between £2 and £3. As the sizes of Native establishments varied, or facilities for cultivation or grazing and disposing of produce or stock were unequal, so the difficulties of a tenant obtaining the amount of his rent varied. None of the farmers, Boer or British, intended to be oppressive. Many of them were remarkably patient and considerate. The fact, however, remains, that for some time before the Rebellion, some were oppressive, although unintentionally so. This mercenary spirit, however, was exhibited not only by the farmers of Natal. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the official publications will find it prevailing in other parts of South Africa. It is, indeed, a characteristic of Western Civilization. Even where Natives themselves are in possession of farms, they, aping their masters, follow a policy not less exacting in regard to men of their own colour.
For several years prior to the Rebellion, the high rate of rents was generally felt as a burden. It was talked about, and talked about loudly. Every report on Native Affairs showed that such was the case. On the other hand, one heard not a word in regard to the hut tax imposed by the Government.[76] The justice of it was approved and its amount considered reasonable. As a matter of fact, the complaint that made itself heard, was not against the European farmers, but against the system which had initiated freehold, leasehold, or any other tenure, as distinct from the purely communal. Because the Natal Government did not abolish landlordism, or at least prohibit landlords from charging tenants more than, say £1 per hut, and ejectment on failure to pay, Natives considered they had just ground for complaint against the Government. In their ignorance of the history of freehold, they looked on the colonists as having initiated, and as being responsible for, a system that flourished in Europe long before Vasco da Gama sailed up the coast of South Africa to set eyes on and name the country occupied by their artless ancestors.
Associated with this question were those of usury and cruelly extortionate charges by certain members of the legal profession, notably such as practised in the "country districts." In consequence of many tenants being unable to meet their obligations, largely through loss of cattle from disease, they were driven to borrowing money. For many years past, it had been the practice for them to draw on their cattle to overcome temporary embarrassment. In the absence of a law regulating the interest chargeable on loans, a few of the lenders demanded and received fabulous rates. It would, however, be unfair to hold the administration responsible for not providing a law, practically unknown in civilized communities, until necessity therefor had actually revealed itself. However that may be, the position must be looked at as it was. Here was a people compelled in the main to meet their financial obligations, public and private, with no better means than the earnings of their sons. These sons, aware that their fathers were depending largely on them, instead of vice versa, began to assume an unusually independent attitude in respect, not only of their parents, but of everyone else. The parents complained to the Government and pressed for the application of correctives. What one of the correctives was will presently appear.[77]
This independence, indeed, was but a symptom characteristic of the age. Its growth had, for many years, been observable, though, in former days, not nearly so aggravated as it became in later ones. To such an extent did it develop by 1906, that contempt for authority, particularly Native authority, began to manifest itself in numerous ways, quickened and accentuated by the evil influences of European towns.
The principal means available to a kraal-head for obtaining money had, for years, been the sending of his sons to work in European towns and elsewhere. With the discovery of the Barberton and Johannesburg gold-fields, considerable inducements were offered in the higher wages there obtainable. It, therefore, followed that many accustomed up till then to find employment in Natal, went off to the new centres of industry. The more these centres developed, the greater became their attractions. The result was that, before long, many thousands repaired thither year after year. So large did the number of Natal and Zululand labourers become, that it became necessary to establish a Government Agent at Johannesburg, whose principal duty was to receive and remit to their respective homes the earnings of the workers. Had there been no such considerate provision, much of the money, urgently required as it was by the parents, must have been squandered, stolen or lost.[78]
At these gold-mining centres, however, especially Johannesburg, youths of Natal came into contact with thousands of Natives from all parts of South Africa. They there became acquainted with that insidious American Negro propaganda called Ethiopianism, as well as with unscrupulous, low-class Europeans of various nationalities. In such environment, it is not surprising that the already growing spirit of independence was developed, as well as vice of the worst possible types. These retrograde tendencies were not long in reacting on Natives in the locations and farms of Natal. Indeed, in conjunction with the local influences referred to above, they speedily became the most potent agents for setting at naught that wonderful tribalism of some of whose features an account has already been given. A deeply-rooted antagonism towards the white man on the part of some began to manifest itself, accompanied by a spirit of defiance that found expression in many ways. Hardly less subversive and disintegrating were the effects of coming into contact with thousands of British soldiers, and the ludicrously familiar attitude of the latter towards Natives during the Boer War.
Alive to the necessity of assisting parents in a matter of this kind, the Government—the Prime Minister then being the Hon. C.J. Smythe—had its own predicament to consider. The wave of great financial depression, brought on by the protracted War, had told severely on the Colony. The Treasury was empty. The credit of the Colony was falling. As much as 6% was being paid on temporary loans, instead of the average rate of 3½% for years paid on public loans. A necessity for instituting new taxing measures was urgent. Already, whilst the preceding Sutton Ministry was in power, had the need for taxation made itself felt. Among the bills of that ministry was one that proposed the imposition of a poll tax, but beyond publication in the Gazette, no further steps had been taken in regard thereto.
When the Smythe Ministry came to look into the financial position, it decided to adopt some of its predecessor's taxing measures and to discard others. Among those discarded, was a Poll Tax Bill. Certain other bills, among them one dealing with unoccupied lands, were passed by the Legislative Assembly, only to be rejected by the Legislative Council. With the end of the session in view and no provision made for equalising revenue and expenditure, it became imperative to impose some other form of taxation. There was, however, no time to prepare a fresh bill. The most obvious forms of taxation had been attempted but had failed. In these circumstances, it was resolved to fall back on the Poll Tax Bill on account of its having already been gazetted as required by law. The Treasurer (Mr., now Sir, Thomas Hyslop, K.C.M.G.), having failed, owing to the adverse action of a nominated upper chamber, to pass measures that appeared to him suitable, it was decided the Prime Minister should take charge of the bill. It succeeded in passing through both Houses with comparatively little discussion. In August, 1905, it became law. It would not have become law but for the rejection of the other taxing measures that had been passed by the representatives of the people.