MISLEADING ARTICLES.

199

them and their affairs by the posture-makers of the English press, yet often feel hurt and annoyed at the ready acceptance which every misrepresentation set afloat concerning them meets with. Now it is not a fact that the circulation of Dutch money leads to confusion in South Africa, either in the British dominions or elsewhere. More than twenty colonists, now in London men who have dwelt in every part of South Africa, from Cape Town to the Zambesi - inform me that they have never, during their years of travel through the countries in question, seen Dutch coin anywhere in use. Some who have been over twenty years in the country have pointed out to me that a discrepancy exists between the American and African interpretations of the word dollar. This is the case. In Africa 1s. 6d. is spoken of as a dollar, yet there is no such coin as a dollar in circulation, and the term is only used as a sort of collateral to the ordinary English expression of value; as, for example, if I were engaged with a Dutchman in the purchase of a piece of land, costing, say, £7, 10s. the acre, I would say to him, "It cost me £7, 10s."- แ a hundred rix-dollars the acre." Yet there is no such thing as a rix-dollar in circulation, no more than there is any other Dutch or foreign coin; and therefore the remarks of The Colonies,' repeated in the 'Times' and other admirable and powerful journals, with reference to the steps to be taken to bring about a uniformity of coinage, were, as regards South Africa, utterly uncalled for.

Another paper, calling itself 'The Colonial Mail,' of 9th May last, after describing what is conceived to be the value of a discovery whereby the bread-fruit tree will be utilised as cattle food, congratulated its Cape Colony and South African readers upon the immense value to them of its new "fattener," utterly regardless of the fact that the tree in question does not grow in any one of her Majesty's South African colonies, nor within many miles of them.

I could go on for ever quoting examples of the reckless ignorance displayed by the press in handling colonial questions. I think, however, it will be more interesting to turn from the newspaper men to teachers supposed to be of a higher class, and whose works are expected to attain a de

gree of permanency, and almost to partake of the character of histories. If the Dutch, as a people, have a complaint against England, it is that they are misrepresented by English writers, and are consequently misjudged and wronged by the nation. This complaint is undoubtedly well founded. In order to prove that it is so, I will contrast some of the statements of the "Historian of the Annexation," Mr Anthony Trollope, one with the other, and occasionally with the authorities he himself relies on, so that out of his own mouth I may vindicate the character of the people whom it has too evidently been his misfortune to vilify and misrepresent.

This writer pretends, with an assumption which the Boers are certainly not inclined to permit to pass unquestioned, that the Transvaal Boer was a British subject, and when engaged in attempting to establish himself anywhere outside of the British lines, and on territory not owned by England, was a rebel in just the same way and to just the same degree as one of the Cato Street conspirators. On this groundless and most unfair assumption he bases his whole work. In his description of the emigrant Boer's conquest of Natal, he makes a statement of fact which is undoubtedly true and supported by authority, but which almost immediately afterwards he ignores, when it suits his purpose to put the Dutch in the wrong, and to excuse our colonial aggressions. Thus (vol. i. p. 248) he describes the first Dutch invasion of Natal, saying, "There was hardly a "native to be seen, the country having been desolated by "the king of the Zulus. It was the very place for the "Dutch-fertile without interference, and with space for "every one." But when he has finally depicted the wars by which the Dutch South Africans protected their new possessions against invading and aggressive Zulus, and even after he himself makes the following statement, referring to the year 1842—"That was the end of Dingaan, and has really been the end up to this time of all fighting between "the Zulus and the white occupiers of Natal "—he vitiates his history by saying, " In the meantime the Dutch had had "further contests with remaining natives-contests in which "they had been the tyrants, and in which they showed a 'strong intention of driving the black tribes altogether

66

แ

66

A SELF-CONTRADICTORY HISTORIAN.

201

away from any lands which they might want themselves. This, and probably a conviction that there were not suffi"cient elements of rule among the Dutch farmers to form a "Government-a conviction for which the doings of the young Volksraad of Natalia gave ample reason-at last "caused our Colonial Office to decide that Natal was still "British territory." Either one or other of these statements must be hopelessly incorrect. Judge Cloete, in his report to Governor Napier on the condition of the natives in Natal in 1844, stated that the native inhabitants would appear to have amounted, on the first occupation of that territory, to no more than 3000, of whom upwards of 2000 had placed themselves under the protection of the Europeans at the port. The remainder were found, by the first emigrants. (the Boers), scattered and dying from starvation. Cloete and Mr Anthony Trollope are agreed that the Dutch South Africans had possessed themselves of Natal when the land was a masterless desert. But the latter writer discovers, in defiance of his own facts, that the Dutch deserved annexation because they were driving Kafirs away from lands whereon only one moment before he had stated there were no Kafirs.

แ

Thus

Later on (p. 256, vol. i.), Mr Anthony Trollope says, “that "the tribes who had fled in fear of the Dutch, or had been "scattered by the Zulu king, flocked in vast hordes into the

country, where they had been taught to feel that they "would be safe under British protection." Again I must recur to the fact, proved by all Mr Trollope's authorities, that when the Dutch entered Natal it was utterly and entirely depopulated. It had been desolated by Chaka, and its only inhabitants were a few wretched fugitives, hiding like serpents in holes. No tribes had fled out of Natal in fear of the Dutch; on the contrary, after the Dutch occupation of Natal and their defeat of the "Zulu" king, thousands of his subjects, flying from the cruelties of Kafirland, flocked into Natal when they had heard that under British law they could enjoy all the pleasures of paganism without being subject to the bitter tyranny of their chiefs. Undoubtedly in 1845, and later, the Dutch South Africans objected to this thronging in of natives upon them; but it must again be

remembered that these were not natives previously driven by them from Natal, but were barbarous Zulus, who had no claim whatever on the country. In order to support this statement by unimpeachable English authority, it is necessary here to place before the reader Noble's account of this matter, always premising that Noble is an English authority strongly prejudiced against the Dutch, and with Judge Cloete, is relied upon by Mr Anthony Trollope to establish his version of the facts:

"There was also distrust and alarm occasioned by the influx of thousands of the savage Zulu tribe, who were permitted to live in a state of unrestrained freedom. Ever since the presence of the British troops in Natal, these natives had sought refuge in the colony, pouring in across the border to escape the tyranny and cruelty of their chief Panda, who appeared to follow the system of indiscriminate murder for which his predecessors had been distinguished. Their overwhelming numbers created a feeling of general insecurity; and the occupants of farms abandoned their isolated positions, declaring that all the evils of the Cape Kafirland were being reproduced around them. The Boer Volksraad, after considering the matter, passed a resolution requiring the Zulus to remove beyond the northern and southern frontier within fourteen days after receiving notice to do so; and they asked the military commandant to co-operate in putting the order in force."

Now it is very hard to discover the injustice of this proposition on the part of the Dutchmen. Their political sagacity has been more than justified by recent events. The immigration of Zulus into Natal has been unchecked to this day. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon its results. It is well known that a permanent and constantly increasing danger to the white colonists in Natal has been created by this immigration, a danger which is painfully evident at the present hour everywhere in this the most fertile and beautiful of English colonies. The only way in which I am able to account for the undoubted contradiction between Mr Trollope and his authorities, is by supposing that his own assertions and opinions are the result of influences brought to bear upon his mind by the men with whom he mixed from day to day, and which overrode the facts he acquired from authentic histories. This circumstance overshadows and prejudices every page of his late work.

At p. 20, vol. ii., Mr Trollope says, referring to the battle of Boomplaatz, 1848: "If the story told by the English be

66

BATTLE OF BOOMPLAATZ.

203

"true, the Boers did not distinguish themselves by courage. on the occasion." It can never be proper for a historian, or a writer of any sort, to make a statement detrimental to the character of a people with whom he is dealing in the capacity of a public instructor, unless such is distinctly borne out by his authorities. On turning to p. 218, vol. ii., of his own work, will be found an account of this battle, which certainly supports in no way his jaunty insinuation against Boer courage :—

66

Then, on the 29th August 1848, was fought the battle of Boomplaatz, half-way between the Orange River and Bloemfontein. Sir Harry Smith, the Governor, had come himself, with 600 or 700 English soldiers, and were joined by a small body of Griquas, who were, as a matter of course, hostile to the Dutch. There were collected together about a thousand Dutch farmers, all mounted. They were farmers ready enough to fight, but not trained soldiers. More Englishmen were killed or wounded than Dutch; a dozen Dutchmen fell, and about four times that number of English. But the English beat the Dutch."

The statement and the insinuation, it must be admitted, are in painful contrast with each other. In order that the public may be able to estimate both at their proper value, I shall now, and again from the English historian Noble, describe what actually did occur.

The British force consisted of two companies of the Rifle Brigade, two of the 45th Regiment, two of the 91st Regiment, and two troops of Cape Mounted Rifles, supported by two guns and a division of the Royal Artillery. To those were added a mounted auxiliary force of Griquas, and other blacks, under Waterboer and Adam Kok, with some mounted farmers. The Boers were pursued until they were driven, on the 28th August 1848, to take up a position across the line of (retreat) road; but they were unwilling to fight, divided amongst themselves, undisciplined, ill-armed, and unprovided with cannon. Even a worm will turn at last.

Noble says, pp. 134 and 135:—

"As the advanced-guard and the general with his escort were pushing on, Kruger in a bewildered manner asked, 'What shall we do now? (Wat zal ons nou doeu ?) Upon which Standers excitedly replied, 'Fire away!' (Blaas maar op!) In a moment the whole top of the ridge was ablaze, and the Boers, showing themselves, discharged a heavy volley of musketry, their bullets dropping around the advancing squadron like a shower of hail. Sir Harry, for a moment surprised by the fierceness of