As we have already said, the junction of the Farmers’ Protection Society with the Bond exercised a moderating influence, but the spirit, intentions, and object of the party remained the same, although Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr attempted, in a manner as astute as it was dangerous, to unite the Dutch and English people in South Africa in a common antagonism to Great Britain’s power, influence, and presence. Even Mr. Merriman saw through this trick, as he declared in a speech delivered at Grahamstown in 1885. “It is now the cue of the Bond to pretend to be loyal, and if it were not painful it would be ridiculous to hear the editor of De Zuid Afrikaan cheering the Queen, and to hear Du Toit praying for her while resolutions are passed round to the branches in direct opposition to the honour of England.... Each one of you will have to make up his mind whether he is prepared to see the colony remain a part of the British Empire, which carries with it obligations as well as privileges, or whether he is prepared to obey the dictates of the Bond. From the very first time, some years ago, when first the poison began to be distilled in this country, I felt that it must come to this: Was England or the Transvaal to be the paramount force in South Africa?... What could they think of the objects of the Bond when they found Judge Reitz advocating a Republic of South Africa under one flag?... No one who wishes well to the British Government could have read the leading articles of the Zuid Afrikaan and Express and De Patriot, in expounding the Bond principles, without seeing that the maintenance of law and order under the British Crown and the object they have in view are absolutely different things.... My quarrel with the Bond is that it stirs up race difference. Its main object is to make the South African Republic the paramount power in South Africa.”
To do justice to the Bond, we must quote Mr. Theron, their secretary, who is reported by the South African News of May 5, 1900, to have said:—
“One other question may be asked, ‘What is the object of the Bond?’ My reply is, its object, its only object, is expressed in sec. 2 of the General Constitution, which is worded as follows: ‘The nearest object of the Bond is the formation of a South African Nationality by means of union and co-operation, as a preparation for the ultimate object, a united South Africa. The Bond tries to attain this object by constitutional means, giving to respective governments and legislatures all the support they are entitled to, and respecting everybody’s rights.’” This was perfectly understood. It was a Dutch Nationality and a Dutch Republican South Africa that was aimed at, and the context fully proved this assertion when the vast majority of the Bond party fought against England, either as belligerents in the Republics or as rebels—active and passive—within the Cape Colony. Nine out of every ten ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church were rebels, according to the testimony of one of their own number—the Rev. Mr. Vlok of Piquetberg. In such circumstances it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the departure from the original, straightforward declaration of the aims of the Bond was nothing but a diplomatic effort to throw dust in the eyes of the enemy.
Certainly such a man as Mr. Cronwright Schreiner was in no way deceived by this attitude, as we find him saying in 1893[8] that the Africander Bond is anti-English in its aims; its officers and its language are Dutch, and it is striving to gain such power as absolutely to control the Cape Parliament. It had “paralysed our political life.” “In fact,” he goes on to say, “the Bond has sacrificed the welfare of the country for years to the selfish attainment of one object, namely, the supremacy of the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the Cape Colony, regardless of the rights of others; the imagined good of an ignorant clique of the Dutch has been preferred to the good of the country. These men must not have power; they are wholly unfit to have it. The Bond is a body striving solely for its own benighted ends, and founded and conducted on race lines.” This was a correct judgment passed from the English Cape Colony farmer’s point of view; men who, quite unlike the pro-Boers in England, perfectly understood their subject by means of adequate evidence obtained on the spot, as well as by bitter personal experience.
Can anything be more significant than the following facts. The Hon. Mr. Bellingan, a Dutch member of the Legislative Council, in the session immediately previous to the war is reported by the Cape Times to have said: “If the policy of annexation were adhered to, they (the Africanders) would take advantage of England’s calamity;” while the Bond paper, Ons Land, reports the honourable member as saying that when the Queen came to die and storms burst over the empire the Africanders would not side with England if the Republics were annexed. Then the member himself, in a letter to the Cape Times, declared that what he said was: “He saw difficulty for the British Empire after the death of our beloved Queen. By giving the Republicans their independence England could reckon upon them as friends, but if the Republics were annexed she could not do so.”
The Bond undoubtedly during many years prepared the materials for a conflagration. The great never-dying, ever-present aspiration was fully expressed in its motto, “Africa for the Africanders.” It was nothing if not diplomatic, and professed very loudly a loyalty which showed itself in its true colours when the Bond party was in power just prior to the war. Then we find its aims exhibited by the Bond party in Parliament, backed up by the Bond Congress, fighting most strenuously against the absurdly lenient provisions of the Treason Bill.
As Mr. Theo. Schreiner aptly says, “Rebellion in fact is no rebellion in the eyes of the Bond so long as it be in accord with the Africander national ideal.” The ministers of their political party allowed ammunition and guns to be carried to the Republics over the railways of the Colony in immense quantities, and the W. P. Schreiner ministry was split up rather than consent to the very mild punishment of deprivation of the franchise being inflicted on rebels. Then came the war, when a large majority of the Bond party were either active or passive rebels.
But no one more clearly points out the real objects of the Bond than Mr. Reitz, one of its original founders, and to the end one of its principal leaders. He does not hesitate to say in his brochure entitled “A Century of Wrong,” largely circulated in more than one language over the continent of Europe:—
“May the hope which glowed in our hearts during 1880, and which buoyed us up during that struggle, burn on steadily. May it prove a beacon of light in our path, invincibly moving onwards through blood and through tears until it leads us to a real union of South Africa.... Whether the result be victory or death, liberty will assuredly rise in South Africa ... just as freedom dawned over the United States of America a little more than a century ago. Then from Zambesi to Simonstown it will be ‘Africa for the Africander.’”
A Bond object-lesson was really to be seen in a practical manner in the South African Republic under the rule of Dutch Africanders. There indeed the Transvaal portion of Africa was clearly ruled for one section of the population—the Africander—to the utter exclusion of the rights of the English population largely in a majority within Johannesburg. There was an election system leading to the corrupt and unjust rule of Boer Raads and a Boer oligarchy. Protection, Concessions, the Master and Servants Acts were all managed in accordance with Africander ideas. Bond views of native policy were carried out in such a way that no coloured person however civilised could vote, nor hold title to fixed property nor trade freely, nor even marry as white people might. All this found encouragement in the Cape Colony, and eventually the absurd fiction of Boers fighting for liberty in the Transvaal was proclaimed as a fact over all Europe, although literally they commenced a war in which they felt sure of success for the purpose of subverting liberty and obtaining complete freedom to carry on government by a section of the people purely for the interests of a section—the Africanders—ignoring altogether equal rights for all other men.