LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE TRANSVAAL.
[To THE EDITOR OF TUE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Without entering into a fall discussion of Mr. Hodgson Pratt's letter in the Spectator of October 7th, may I inquire what he means by coupling the names of " Shepstone and Jameson " as the villains of the Transvaal drama ? Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent by Lord Carnarvon on a special mission to Pretoria in 1877, he was given full discretionary powers, and, after a careful study of the local conditions, he issued a Proclamation annexing the Transvaal. Whether the step was wise or not is another question ; the point overlooked by Mr. Pratt is that Shepstone was a public servant entrusted with delicate duties, that his proceedings were quite "above-board," and that the Boers offered absolutely no resistance to his entry or to his subsequent pro- ceedings, although he had no military force behind him. Dr. Jameson, on the other hand, was a public servant in charge of the administration of Matabeleland. He withdrew hie police from their duties (thereby making possible the subse- quent Matabele rebellion), and led them into the South African Republic in a time of peace. He misled the men under him, he deliberately disobeyed the High Commissioner's orders to return, and he involved himself in an engagement with the foxces of the Republic. Mr. Pratt should explain what he means by suggesting a parallel between the loyal public servant and the disobedient filibuster. It really seems to me that it would be quite as justifiable to talk about 'the campaign against English rule in Ireland undertaken by Gladstone and—let us say—Tynan,' as to involve in one sweeping condemnation Shepstone and Jameson.
But it is a curious thing that "Liberal " politicians some- times attack without mercy or fairness public servants with whose policy they disagree. When it suits their purpose, Liberal critics ascribe the annexation of the Transvaal to Sir Bartle Frere ; when, again, they want to make a telling phrase, they exhume and insult Sir Theophilus Shepstone. I hope I may, without discourtesy, suggest that the phrase "these Pilgrim Fathers of French and Dutch descent, who tied into the wilds of Africa to avoid religions persecution" is mere rhetoric. If Mr. Pratt will take the trouble to look into the early history of South Africa, he will find that the Dutch did not go there "to avoid religious persecution " (for Holland had established her independence long before Van Riebeeck had founded Cape Town), and that some of the French Huguenots fled to Holland (just as others fled to England, Ireland, and Switzerland) after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and, being homeless, were "planted" in South Africa by the Dutch East India Company very much as the " German Legion " was planted in South Africa by the British Government after the Crimean War. I do not wish to be discourteous to Mr. Pratt, whose letter is in the main an eloquent and very fair exposition of views which should (as you, Sir, have pointed out more than once) be received with respect. But I do wish to pro. test against the introduction into such a letter of rhetorical phrases which involve injustice to the memory of a great public servant.—I am, Sir, &c., AFRICANUS.
Previous page
