CHAPTER XIV. THE FRANCHISE. AFTER THE CONFERENCE OF BLOEMFONTEIN. [20] 1.-- A Kruger Trick.

The Anglophobe Pro-Boers of course blame Mr. Chamberlain for the rupture of the Bloemfontein Conference, and extol the forbearance of Mr. KrÜger, who carried off his proposal to have it passed by the Volksraad, and "his" burghers.

They do not reflect, that, had he honestly desired to put the matter on the road to settlement, Mr. KrÜger should first have come to an understanding upon it. By passing it through the Volksraad as law, he should have cut the cable, were he in reality, anything but an autocrat, and such ratifications anything but mere formalities.

Mr. KrÜger had the condescension to say to England, "So you will have none of my proposals which compel those already in the Transvaal to an eleven or twelve years' residence, coupled with impossible formalities, before obtaining the franchise? Very well, I will renew my offer to you in the name of the Volksraad and of "my" burghers, and if you are not satisfied, leave me alone to hoodwink a large proportion of enlightened men on the Continent into believing that I am simply the victim of Mr. Chamberlain's animosity, and England's greed."

2.—The Bill passed by the Volksraad.

The bill introduced into the Volksraad on July 13th was passed on July 19th, with only the addition of one amendment to Article 4, by which residents in the Transvaal, prior to the promulgation of the law, were entitled to obtain naturalisation after seven, instead of nine years of residence, on condition that they had complied with the requisite formalities, and had submitted to the delays before stated. People admired Mr. KrÜger's generosity. Nine or ten years, instead of eleven or twelve, for the Uitlanders already settled in the Transvaal! What sacrifices he was making to ensure peace! What magnanimity towards Uitlanders! The first paragraph of Article 4 runs thus:

This article, therefore, only accorded naturalisation to former residents; their seven years in the country counted no more than two.

Suppose them naturalised; in reality, they are deprived of all nationality.

They belong no longer to the land of their birth; if wronged, or maltreated they have no claim upon it for redress.

They are not burghers: they have no political rights; they are, in fact, minors who have lost their guardian.

This condition was to last for seven years in a country where changes are made by the week.

The art of importing confusion into the simplest matters, has been most successfully practised by Mr. KrÜger and Dr. Leyds. They have even succeeded in persuading thinking men that the Uitlanders should have accepted with enthusiasm the law of July 19th, and that they should have been deeply grateful to Mr. KrÜger who had "reduced from nine to seven years the term first proposed by him at Bloemfontein."

3.—Pretended Concessions.

The changes referring to the "redistribution" of seats in the Volksraad were numerous. Mr. KrÜger posed as making a huge concession to mining districts in raising the number of seats to twelve; but six of these were for the second Volksraad. Now the second Volksraad must always have the same number of members as the First; thus the apparent concession was merely a valueless automatic arrangement, for it is well understood that the second Volksraad is simply a show institution, devised in 1890. The various schemes for redistribution lead one to the conclusion that the number of members in the First Volksraad were to be in inverse ratio to the population.

The Uitlander looked with mistrust upon a law voted one day which could be modified the next by a simple resolution of the Volksraad; he considered it an illusion which might vanish at any moment Mr. KrÜger and his friends thought proper.

4.—The Joint Commission.

The British Government might have replied that it did not recognise this law, and have confined itself to the proposals put forward by Sir Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein Conference. It did not take this attitude which, in France, would have been advised by the most half-hearted of our Nationalists, had the French Government been engaged in similar negotiations.

In his despatch of July 27, Mr. Chamberlain appears to think that "the concessions made to the Uitlanders to guarantee them something of the equality promised them in 1881 were made in good faith; but this law of July 19th is full of complicated details; he therefore proposes that it should be examined by a joint commission." In the Colonial Secretary's despatch of August 2nd to Pretoria, he adds: "It is understood that the Commission to examine into the question of the Uitlanders' Electoral rights shall be prepared to discuss every subject that the Government of the South African Republic may desire to bring before it, including arbitration, exclusive always of the intervention of Foreign Powers."

5.—Bargaining.

The Government of Pretoria had put the law in force without waiting to consider these remarks.

On August 15th a despatch of Sir Alfred Milner's makes mention of a proposal of the State Attorney to the British Government to waive their invitation to a joint enquiry, in respect of the concession of a retrospective Franchise of seven years being substituted for mere naturalisation, and of an increase in the number of seats. Such a proposition on the part of the Government of Pretoria shows plainly that it wished to evade enquiry into a law so fettered with formalities that its working was chimerical. And when Sir Alfred Milner referred to his proposal at Bloemfontein, the State Attorney decreased to five years the term of retrospective registration, gave eight seats to the Rand, and two to other mining districts.

Upon which Pro-Boers exclaim: The Government of Pretoria has made every possible concession!

6.—The Conditions, and Withdrawal of Proposals.

They prove by that exclamation that they had not read Sir Alfred Milner's despatches of the 22nd and 23rd of August.

The Government of Pretoria made these concessions, indeed but on condition: (1) That the British Government shall withdraw its proposal for a joint Commission to enquire into whether the law was workable; (2) That the British Government shall renounce suzerainty; (3) That arbitration—apart from Foreign Powers, with exception of the Orange Free State—shall be granted immediately upon the Franchise Law being settled. On August 28th Mr. Chamberlain replies. Concerning the suzerainty, he refers to his despatch of July 13th; he consents to discuss the Constitution of a Tribunal of Arbitration from which Foreign Powers, and foreign influence, shall be excluded; he concludes by proposing a fresh Conference.

What is the reply of the Boer Government on September 2nd? The withdrawal of its proposals of August 19th and 21st, relative to the five years' Franchise and increase of number of seats in the Volksraad.

Thus, at the end of three months' negotiations, no conclusion had been arrived at.

It is to this despatch of September 2nd, that Mr. Chamberlain's despatch of September 8th, replies; in that despatch he states, that he is still prepared to accept the proposals of August 19th concerning the Franchise, provided that the enquiry by a Commission, joint or unilateral, prove that the law is workable.

The representation of Uitlanders in the Volksraad, is, of course, only possible on condition that they had the right to make use of the English language.

On September 23rd, the Transvaal Government replies that the taal, a language not spoken by any but Boers, is to remain the only language used in the Volksraad, and in dilatory phraseology paves the way for the ultimatum of October 9th. Here we have a summary of the negotiations relating to the franchise, from the time of the Bloemfontein Conference.

7.—The Franchise is Self-Government.

Confronted with these facts, the Pro-Boer cries: "Ah, but Mr. KrÜger was obliged to protect himself. He could not have his burghers swamped by Uitlanders. He was perfectly right."

Good. There is the theory that honest dealing is unnecessary in public negotiations; an apology for that system which is in direct contradiction to the maxim of private law that you cannot give and withhold at one and the same time.

"But why should the English insist upon obtaining the franchise for Uitlanders?"

In order that there should be no more need for the British Government to concern itself in Transvaal affairs, Sir Alfred Milner was right when he said to the State Attorney (despatch of August 15th):

On August 28th, Mr. Chamberlain speaks the same language; at the same time justly observing, that only a portion of the Englishmen residing in the Transvaal would seek to become naturalised.

In point of fact when in February, 1896, the British Government demanded autonomy for the Rand, and on this proposition being refused, demanded at Bloemfontein the Franchise for Uitlanders, it was neither bent upon a policy of absorption nor of conquest. They desired to place self-government in the hands of the Uitlanders, in order to be able to say to them: "Now manage your own affairs with the Boers, obtain respect for your rights by constitutional measures. We are no further concerned in the matter."

It was not the conquest of the Transvaal that was desired by the British Government, it was the establishment of an autonomous Republic.

The Uitlanders of British, Australian, German and American extraction, inter-mixing with the Boers, would soon have merged their national characteristics, and have become simply citizens of the South African Republic.

The Boers might have constructed a vast, wealthy and powerful State in which for generations to come, they would have held the supremacy. As a conquered people they will be compelled to accept the constitution they might have granted, and granted the more readily as they would have reaped the largest share of the benefits.

---