pursued a policy of protection and conciliation towards the native races, and that the condition of many of the latter was indeed 'deplorable.' The policy of the British Government is no doubt open to a good deal of unfavourable criticism. It is certain that the early Governors were unduly optimistic as to the immediate results of their conciliatory measures, but at least they did not allow those measures to be set at naught by the restless spirits on either side of the frontier. Unhappily their stern but just rule gave place, under the influence of reformers and philanthropists in high places, to a timid policy, which was appreciated neither by the colonists nor by the natives. Patrols disappeared and passes became superfluous; the Kaffir roamed at will, thieving as he went, and once more the farmers raised commandoes and pursued the hue and cry with fire and shot throughout the upland kraals, only to suffer in turn the savage reprisals of native warfare. Then at last the Government intervened, a new frontier was proclaimed, patrols and passes were restored-and as quickly removed with the next paroxysm of sentimentality. The true remedy for this chronic disease was to be found in the isolation of the disturbed districts. Unfortunately this simple expedient was prohibited by the expense which it involved. The position therefore was a deadlock; but whilst the officials and farmers were fighting over the native's body, the missionary stepped in and claimed his soul.

We

In the present day we are apt to regard the patient civilisation of the native races as a policy the wisdom of which is beyond reasonable doubt. The time has long gone by since it was thought justifiable to use the more tractable as beasts of burden, and to pursue and destroy, like dangerous animals, such as had not yet ventured to place themselves in our power. no longer hesitate to accord to these swarthy fellow-subjects the common liberties of Englishmen in the security of their persons and property, and even, when these are due to them, the higher privileges of citizenship. Thus we sometimes forget that the emancipation of the native races in South Africa formed the subject of bitter contention for nearly three generations after the British occupation.

Following in the footsteps of the good Moravian Brethren, the English missionaries began their labours in the colony in the year 1799. Their progress at first was slow, and for many years their attention was confined to the Hottentots. That they found these people in a condition which excited the compassion and indignation of every Englishman who visited the colony, and that by their persistent exertions they were able, within the space of thirty years, to raise them to the position

of free labourers, and even of peasant proprietors, are facts that can scarcely be disputed. Unfortunately the intolerance and vanity of many of the Society's emissaries, in their relations both with the Colonial Government and with the Dutch settlers, are only too evident in the controversial literature of that time, and have done much to discredit a good cause; but, when all is said, the fact remains that they saved a whole race that was surely doomed to extinction, and, at the same time, solved a problem which had baffled statesmen and Governors, by converting a class of bestial and predatory savages into useful subjects.

It is an old saying that the Englishman, when he sets about planting a settlement, first of all builds an exchange, that the Frenchman builds a theatre, and the Portuguese a church; but the native, who has once experienced the blessings of civilisation, when he returns to his own people forthwith builds a school. By educating the natives the English missionaries gave them, in addition to a somewhat faint glimmering of morality, a keen perception of their own interests. But in so doing they incurred the bitter resentment of the colonists, who did not hesitate to trace most of their troubles—and a good deal of their stolen cattle-to the mission station. Dr. Theal seems to have inherited their views. To say that he has a very poor opinion of missionaries would be going too far. It would seem that he does not object to missionaries in general, but only to English missionaries. This distinction is very clearly marked in the long analysis of the journal or report of Commissioner de Mist's tour of inspection, when the colony was restored to the Dutch in 1803, which is given in the editor's 'Digest.'

After visiting the Moravian mission, where they had a difficulty in finding words to express their pleasure and satisfaction with what they saw,' the officials proceeded to the London Society's station, which, we are told, was found in a state of indescribable squalor and disorder.

'More with a view of keeping the Hottentots out of mischief than with any expectation of this institution becoming useful, the Commissioner-General made a small grant of money from the Colonial Treasury towards the funds of the place, and added to the gift some sensible advice.' (Digest,' p. 112.)

As this document, which is cited in the editor's Digest,' does not appear in the text of the edition of the London 'Records,' we must conclude that the original is preserved at Cape Town, although, as usual, we have no indication whatever of the fact. Is it possible, however, that the words which we have italicised are only Dr. Theal's own attempt to explain away the grant

referred to? The History of South Africa,' Dr. Theal has somewhere told us, 'cannot be written without close study of the manuscript records in the Government Offices in Cape Town.' We do not doubt the closeness of Dr. Theal's studies, but we could sometimes wish for a fairer interpretation of the original authorities. Without any study of archives, an impartial reader of Dr. Theal's 'digest' of Mist's report will probably discover in it marks of exaggeration and prejudice, and he need go no further than a printed Blue-book to discern the cause. In the report of Thomas Bigge, one of the most experienced and upright Commissioners ever employed by a Government, we read on this very subject:

'Much of the opposition that was shown by the Dutch Government . . . arose from the national jealousy of the sources from whence he [the English missionary] derived his pecuniary support, and of the friendly feeling which the Hottentots under his care had always manifested towards the English Government.'

It is somewhat of a relief, however, to ascertain that Dr. Theal has not always entertained this unfavourable opinion of the London missionaries, for in his Compendium' (p. 167) he gives another version of the documentary narrative of the Dutch Commissioner's tour, in which nothing appears to the disadvantage of the Society; on the contrary, we learn that Mr. de Mist assisted them to the utmost of his power.'

Still more interesting is the contrast between Dr. Theal's earlier and later views upon the more serious phases of the native question. Indeed, we sometimes meet in the Compendium' with comments upon the inhumanity of the Boers expressed with a degree of warmth for which we fear that the author of the 'History of South Africa' must have many times had cause to blush. One passage is as follows:

These [domestic "servants"] were obtained by compelling Hottentots and Bushmen to take service, and very cruel measures were resorted to for this purpose. The natives were hunted down by commandos in a mannner which must ever leave a stigma upon the memory of the frontier colonists of last century. The usual course of proceeding was for a farmer to complain to the landdrost that his cattle had been stolen. . . . The farmers of the district were then called together and proceeded to attack the nearest kraals. No mercy was shown to adults, but the children were spared to be parcelled out as servants.' (' Compendium,' p. 116.)

There was, however, one result of this attitude of the Dutch settlers towards the native races which neither Governor nor missionary was able to foresee. It paved the way for a great

movement, intended to solve the native question once for all by the stern device of self-expatriation.

The causes of the Great Trek of the year 1837 have been the subject of incessant controversy. If it was due-as is often asserted to the insecurity of life and property consequent on the unwise countenance given by the Government to the natives, the wonder is that it was deferred for so many years. On Dr. Theal's own showing the position of the Dutch farmers in 1837 could scarcely have been worse than it was in 1799. As we have seen, the perverse view of the situation taken by the colonial Government, whether English or Dutch, in the early period was this: that these frontier farmers 'too often provoked the natives' by acts of wanton aggression in defiance of repeated edicts, and that they were suffering the consequences of their own imprudence. We are far from insisting that in the later period the farmers were the sole aggressors, or that their position would not have been one of serious danger without the protection of the Government, which was not always efficient. After all, however, they were reaping as they had sown; and the real cause of their defenceless state was their own political disaffection towards the Government which had prevented them from pursuing what they conceived to be a more excellent plan. As Dr. Theal has justly remarked, in his unconverted days:-

There was much that was good in their character, and they were decidedly free from prominent vices. But with regard to the black man their opinions were at variance with those of enlightened men of our day. In their eyes he was an inferior being who ought to be kept in subjection to a white master. Neither they nor their fathers considered it a sin to disregard native rights when those rights interfered with the white man's prosperity.' (Compendium, p. 231.) It is therefore a matter of some importance to ascertain Dr. Theal's later opinion as to the actual cause of the extreme step taken by the emigrant farmers of the next generation. He observes that there are two theories of the emigration:

The first is that it was really nothing more than a continuation of what had been going on since the beginning of the eighteenth century. This is incorrect.' (History,' iv, 90.)

'The other theory' (he continues) is that of most people in England, that the movement was due to an objection of the Dutch colonists to the freedom of the slaves. This is equally incorrect.' (Ibid., p. 91.)

In this instance Dr. Theal is not content with a mere assertion. He offers what he regards as conclusive evidence, from the slave

His argu

records of the colony, in support of his statement. ment is as follows. On the abolition of slavery in the Cape Colony there were in the districts nearest to Cape Town nearly thirty-three thousand slaves, whilst in the more remote districts there were not many more than six thousand slaves. But over ninety-eight per cent. of the emigrants came from the outlying districts. Therefore the abolition of slavery could

not have been the cause of the Great Trek.

'Nothing' (says Dr. Theal) that can be said or written can be more conclusive than these figures': * and his conclusion has been selected for especial admiration by Mr. Reginald Statham, who remarks that Dr. Theal 'lucidly disposes' of several misrepresentations of the historical origin of the Great Trek, proving that it was not founded on any objection to the freeing of the domestic slaves.'†

We might almost be content with referring Mr. Statham to the earlier dictum of his great authority, which insists that the emigrants were—

'dissatisfied with all the recent acts of the British Government with regard to the Colony, more particularly with the elevation of the Hottentots, the restoration of the ceded territory to the Kaffirs, and the emancipation of the slaves.' (Compendium,' p. 231.)

It is perhaps unfortunate that Mr. Statham did not select this earlier version of the matter, since it is not difficult to show that Dr. Theal's later argument is founded on misleading premises.

In the first place, it will be evident that the total number of slaves given here by Dr. Theal as more than 39,000, does not agree with the accepted total of 35,745 for the Cape Colony. The explanation is that a large number of non-effective slaves were, by general consent, immediately wiped off the lists, and should be omitted from any statistical calculation. Dr. Theal, however, has added these in, and has thus inflated the return in order to suit his own argument, since the larger the total of the slaves, the greater appears to be the disparity of the returns from the outlying districts. We cannot allow that this arrangement of the figures is unintentional, as in the corresponding passage of his 'Compendium' and in the preceding volume of his History' Dr. Theal has given the normal figures.

But this is a small matter. The serious error which underlies Dr. Theal's argument consists in his regarding the mere numerical total of slaves emancipated as an infallible test of the

* History of South Africa,' iv, 92. Vol. 192.-No. 383. с

+ 'Paul Kruger,' p. 18.