In 1902, the British Imperial and Dutch representatives signed the Peace terms
at Vereeniging. In these, the rights of the coloured citizens
were postponed till after the old Republics had responsible Government.
Responsible Government has since been granted, and has in turn
been succeeded by the Union. But when the Imperial Parliament,
In 1909, considered the Act of Union, English and Dutch South Africans came over and represented to the Imperial authorities that there would be a striking demonstration (or words to that effect) against the federation, and even against South Africa's relation to the Mother Country if native rights were as much as mentioned in the Constitution; and the South African Native Franchise has now receded as far off as the Greek calends. So where is that "growing spirit of justice"?
* * * * *
When you speak of converting Mohammedans, let the question be asked: "What must Mohammedans think of those whose religion having said `In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread,' they nevertheless uphold the policy of rulers who pass regulations debarring one section of the community from following an honest occupation in their native land? And what impression must be created in the minds of black converts who are subjected to discriminations, including prohibitions that were not in existence five years ago?"
And if in spite of beautiful voices that I have heard this Easter Sunday singing anthems concerning the triumph of the kingdom of love the British flag continues to defend the policy of repression and colour hatred in South Africa, then I fear that the black victims of this policy, many of them converted to Christianity through your efforts, might very well class your Easter anthems and their great teaching with the newspaper canard relative to a "growing spirit of justice in South Africa"; for our bitter experience proves that spirit to be at best but a dwindling one.
Two years ago I was alarmed by the impious utterances of a coloured man whose friendship I valued. He being influential among our people, I gently remonstrated with him lest through his action many of our people become unsettled in their faith. This was his explanation: He was going along an East Rand suburb at eleven o'clock one Sunday morning when the bells were ringing. He saw a number of people entering a Dutch church, and as he was far from home he mingled with them, intending to spend the hour at worship instead of continuing his walk. But no sooner was he inside than the usher jostled him out of the church, hailed a policeman and handed him in charge, so that he spent the next hour in the charge office instead of at chapel. On the Monday morning he was convicted by the East Rand Magistrate and fined 1 Pound for trespassing on a private place, to wit, a church. And that was a Dutch Reformed church, the State Church of South Africa. Others had reproached him before me for such utterances, he said, but he will have "no more of our religious mockery with its theoretical `Come unto Me' and its practical `1 Pound or a month with hard labour'."
John Ruskin, writing on `State Intervention', says:
== "When a peasant mother sees one of her careless children fall into a ditch, her first proceeding is to pull him out; her second, to box his ears; her third, ordinarily, to lead him carefully a little way by the hand, or send him home for the rest of the day. The child usually cries, and very often would clearly prefer remaining in the ditch; and if he understood any of the terms of politics, would certainly express resentment at the interference with his individual liberty: but the mother has done her duty." ==
Ruskin goes further and depicts the calamities of a mother nation which, like a foxhunter, complies with the request of its daughter nations "to be left in muddy independence."*
— * `Political Economy of Art': Addenda (J. E., Section 127). —