LIVINGSTONE AND THE BOERS.
[To TILE EDITOR 07 THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—By last mail from England, I received your issue of April 6th, containing a review of Mr. Thomas Hughes's "David Livingstone," in which, as a South African, I was naturally deeply interested. There is one paragraph in your review, however, which I think deserves correction. You say :— " While absent escorting his family to the coast, the Boers attacked his [Livingstone's] friend Seehele, carried off many to make them slaves, and destroyed Livingstone's property. Think of foolish John Bull,' he writes, paying so many thousands a year for the suppression of the slave-trade, and allowing Commissions even to make treaties with the Boers who carry it on.' To his remonstrances against needless slaughter —a chief had drowned two enemies—the answer was : 'You see, we are still Boers, we are not yet taught;' but they frequently yielded to his intercession."
The story about the Boers carrying off many of Seehele's people to make them slaves, and destroying Livingstone's property, is critically and impartially sifted in that most interesting but too little known work by Mr. G. McCall Theal, of the Cape Civil Service, called "The History of the Boers in South Africa." Mr. Theal states the facts, and they briefly amount to this : that the emigrant farmers having been plundered by certain people called the Ba.katla, whose chief was named Moselele, resolved to call them to account, and sent a small command of over three hundred men to demand the surrender of Moselele, who had taken refuge with Living- stone's friend Sechele. Sechele refused to deliver up Moselele. He was attacked, and fled, abandoning between two and three hundred women and children. These the farmers took in custody, with the object of bringing Sechele to terms. Mr.
TheaI says Exactly the same thing has been done by gallant and humane Englishmen in more recent times." Only a very few of these captives were redeemed by their friends. and "nearly all, after a short captivity, escaped, or were per- mitted to return to their tribe, and the remainder, being children, were apprenticed to various persons." So much for the charge of making slaves of Sechele's people.
The other story, about the Boers destroying Livingstone's property, is equally unsupported by evidence. Mr. Theal says :—" At the time, in a report to his commanding officer, which no one could then suppose would ever be published, Commandant Scholtz stated that Livingstone's house had been broken open and pillaged before his arrival at Kolsbeng." A recital of the facts leaves the impression on an impartial mind that there is no evidence to support the charge brought against the farmers ; but, on the contrary, that the surrounding circumstances point the other way, and an intelligent jury would undoubtedly acquit the Boers of the charge brought against them, and repeated again and again until it has come to be accepted by the world at large as a true and typical story illustrating the character of the Boers. There is already sufficient prejudice against the Dutch people of South Africa, without its being necessary to inflame the ill-will that exists against them by the repetition of exploded fallacies.
The last sentence which I have extracted from your article is meaningless as applied to the Boers. It must refer to Sechele or some other friends of Livingstone's, The chief who drowned two enemies must have been a Kaffir chief, or the answer could not have been, "You see, we are still Boers," &c. The context shows this, and yet the implication is that the Boers drowned their enemies, and that they frequently yielded to Livingstone's intercession. I am not aware that the emigrant farmers ever yielded to Livingstone's intercession," or that he ever claimed to have any influence with them.—
Previous page
